↓ Skip to main content

Nectar in Plant–Insect Mutualistic Relationships: From Food Reward to Partner Manipulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 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
Nectar in Plant–Insect Mutualistic Relationships: From Food Reward to Partner Manipulation
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.01063
Pubmed ID
Authors

Massimo Nepi, Donato A. Grasso, Stefano Mancuso

Abstract

It has been known for centuries that floral and extra-floral nectar secreted by plants attracts and rewards animals. Extra-floral nectar is involved in so-called indirect defense by attracting animals (generally ants) that prey on herbivores, or by discouraging herbivores from feeding on the plant. Floral nectar is presented inside the flower close to the reproductive organs and rewards animals that perform pollination while visiting the flower. In both cases nectar is a source of carbon and nitrogen compounds that feed animals, the most abundant solutes being sugars and amino acids. Plant-animal relationships involving the two types of nectar have therefore been used for a long time as text-book examples of symmetric mutualism: services provided by animals to plants in exchange for food provided by plants to animals. Cheating (or deception or exploitation), namely obtaining the reward/service without returning any counterpart, is however, well-known in mutualistic relationships, since the interacting partners have conflicting interests and selection may favor cheating strategies. A more subtle way of exploiting mutualism was recently highlighted. It implies the evolution of strategies to maximize the benefits obtained by one partner while still providing the reward/service to the other partner. Several substances other than sugars and amino acids have been found in nectar and some affect the foraging behavior of insects and potentially increase the benefits to the plant. Such substances can be considered plant cues to exploit mutualism. Recent evidence motivated some authors to use the term "manipulation" of animals by plants in nectar-mediated mutualistic relationships. This review highlights the recent background of the "manipulation" hypothesis, discussing it in the framework of new ecological and evolutionary scenarios in plant-animal interactions, as a stimulus for future research.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 17%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 3%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 69 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 82 41%
Environmental Science 16 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Other 11 5%
Unknown 75 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 January 2019.
All research outputs
#13,386,534
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#6,135
of 20,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,056
of 329,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#176
of 482 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 329,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 482 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.