Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27019738›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2015

Oviposition preference of cabbage white butterflies in the framework of costs and benefits of interspecific herbivore associations.

Kaori Shiojiri, Maurice Sabelis, Junji Takabayashi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kaori ShiojiriCenter for Ecological ResearchKyoto University2-509-3 Hirano, Otsu, Shiga 520-2113, Japan; The Hakubi Center for Advanced ResearchKyoto UniversityYoshida Ushinomiya, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
Maurice SabelisInstitute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam Kruislaan 320, 1098SM Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Junji TakabayashiCenter for Ecological Research Kyoto University 2-509-3 Hirano, Otsu, Shiga 520-2113, Japan.
Kyoto University · JPUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When deciding where to oviposit, herbivorous insects consider: (i) the plant's value as a food source, (ii) the risks of competing with con- and heterospecific herbivores, and (iii) the risks of parasitism and predation on the host plant. The presence of con- and/or heterospecific competitors would further affect the oviposition preference, because the preceding herbivores induce direct/indirect defences in plants against forthcoming herbivores, and thereby alter oviposition decisions. In previous studies, the abovementioned factors have not been studied in an integrative manner. We performed here a case study of this by assessing the oviposition preferences of a small white butterfly, Pieris rapae, for plants occupied by combinations of conspecific larvae, heterospecific larvae (Plutella xylostella), specialist parasitoids of Pi. rapae (Cotesia glomerata) and generalist predators (ants). We previously reported that the females showed equal preference for Pl. xylostella-infested and uninfested plants. Here, we showed that Pi. rapae females preferred uninfested plants to conspecific-infested ones, and Pl. xylostella-infested plants to Pi. rapae-infested ones. We discuss these oviposition preferences of Pi. rapae females in the framework of costs and benefits of interspecific herbivore associations from the above point of view.

Indexed as

antscabbage plantsoviposition decisionPieris rapaePlutella xylostella

Identifiers

PMID27019738
PMCPMC4807460
OpenAlexW2258446820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.