ArticlePloS one2014
The value of patch-choice copying in fruit flies.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Female fruit flies use social cues to make egg-clustering decisions.BMC biology · 2025Article
- On the use of kinship and familiarity associated social information in mediating Drosophila melanogaster oviposition decisions.PloS one · 2025Article
- Sex Pheromone Mediates Resource Partitioning BetweenEvolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Oviposition experience affects oviposition preference iniScience · 2024Article
- How conspecific and allospecific eggs and larvae drive oviposition preference in Drosophila.Chemical senses · 2024Article
- Effects of co-occurrence and intra- and interspecific interactions between Drosophila suzukii and Zaprionus indianus.PloS one · 2023Article
- Drosophila melanogaster behaviour changes in different social environments based on group size and density.Communications biology · 2020Article
- Social and nutritional factors shape larval aggregation, foraging, and body mass in a polyphagous fly.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- A Drosophila female pheromone elicits species-specific long-range attraction via an olfactory channel with dual specificity for sex and food.BMC biology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many animals copy the choices of others but the functional and mechanistic explanations for copying are still not fully resolved. We relied on novel behavioral protocols to quantify the value of patch-choice copying in fruit flies. In a titration experiment, we quantified how much nutritional value females were willing to trade for laying eggs on patches already occupied by larvae (social patches). Females were highly sensitive to nutritional quality, which was positively associated with their offspring success. Females, however, perceived social, low-nutrition patches (33% of the nutrients) as equally valuable as non-social, high-nutrition ones (100% of the nutrients). In follow-up experiments, we could not, however, either find informational benefits from copying others or detect what females' offspring may gain from developing with older larvae. Because patch-choice copying in fruit flies is a robust phenomenon in spite of potential costs due to competition, we suggest that it is beneficial in natural settings, where fruit flies encounter complex dynamics of microbial communities, which include, in addition to the preferred yeast species they feed on, numerous harmful fungi and bacteria. We suggest that microbial ecology underlies many cases of copying in nature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.