You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Why do Varroa mites prefer nurse bees?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep28228 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xianbing Xie, Zachary Y. Huang, Zhijiang Zeng |
| Abstract |
The Varroa mite, Varroa destructor, is an acarine ecto-parasite on Apis mellifera. It is the worst pest of Apis mellifera, yet its reproductive biology on the host is not well understood. In particular, the significance of the phoretic stage, when mites feed on adult bees for a few days, is not clear. In addition, it is not clear whether the preference of mites for nurses observed in the laboratory also happens inside real colonies. We show that Varroa mites prefer nurses over both newly emerged bees and forgers in a colony setting. We then determined the mechanism behind this preference. We show that this preference maximizes Varroa fitness, although due to the fact that each mite must find a second host (a pupa) to reproduce, the fitness benefit to the mites is not immediate but delayed. Our results suggest that the Varroa mite is a highly adapted parasite for honey bees. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 22% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 41% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 5 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#563,431
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#6,295
of 123,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,450
of 352,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#194
of 3,624 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,624 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.