↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Floral Scents and Their Dietary Experiences on the Feeding Preference in the Blowfly, Phormia regina

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
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.
Title
Effects of Floral Scents and Their Dietary Experiences on the Feeding Preference in the Blowfly, Phormia regina
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2015.00059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toru Maeda, Miwako Tamotsu, Ryohei Yamaoka, Mamiko Ozaki

Abstract

The flowers of different plant species have diverse scents with varied chemical compositions. Hence, every floral scent does not uniformly affect insect feeding preferences. The blowfly, Phormia regina, is a nectar feeder, and when a fly feeds on flower nectar, its olfactory organs, antennae, and maxillary palps are exposed to the scent. Generally, feeding preference is influenced by food flavor, which relies on both taste and odor. Therefore, the flies perceive the sweet taste of nectar and the particular scent of the flower simultaneously, and this olfactory information affects their feeding preference. Here, we show that the floral scents of 50 plant species have various effects on their sucrose feeding motivation, which was evaluated using the proboscis extension reflex (PER). Those floral scents were first categorized into three groups, based on their effects on the PER threshold sucrose concentration, which indicates whether a fly innately dislikes, ignores, or likes the target scent. Moreover, memory of olfactory experience with those floral scents during sugar feeding influenced the PER threshold. After feeding on sucrose solutions flavored with floral scents for 5 days, the scents did not consistently show the previously observed effects. Considering such empirical effects of scents on the PER threshold, we categorized the effects of the 50 tested floral scents on feeding preference into 16 of all possible 27 theoretical types. We then conducted the same experiments with flies whose antennae or maxillary palps were ablated prior to PER test in a fly group naïve to floral scents and prior to the olfactory experience during sugar feeding in the other fly group in order to test how these organs were involved in the effect of the floral scent. The results suggested that olfactory inputs through these organs play different roles in forming or modifying feeding preferences. Thus, our study contributes to an understanding of underlying mechanisms associated with the convergent processing of olfactory inputs with taste information, which affects feeding preference or appetite.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 40%
Environmental Science 2 13%
Psychology 2 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,297,343
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#757
of 856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,860
of 387,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#17
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 387,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.