Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27846252›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Flower-Visiting Butterflies Avoid Predatory Stimuli and Larger Resident Butterflies: Testing in a Butterfly Pavilion.

Yuya Fukano, Yosuke Tanaka, Sayed Ibrahim Farkhary, Takuma Kurachi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Yuya FukanoGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yosuke TanakaUeno Zoological Gardens, Tokyo Zoological Park Society, Tokyo, Japan.
Sayed Ibrahim FarkharyDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
Takuma KurachiDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The flower-visiting behaviors of pollinator species are affected not only by flower traits but also by cues of predators and resident pollinators. There is extensive research into the effects of predator cues and resident pollinators on the flower-visiting behaviors of bee pollinators. However, there is relatively little research into their effects on butterfly pollinators probably because of the difficulty in observing a large number of butterfly pollination events. We conducted a dual choice experiment using artificial flowers under semi-natural conditions in the butterfly pavilion at Tama Zoological Park to examine the effects of the presence of a dead mantis and resident butterflies have on the flower-visiting behavior of several butterfly species. From 173 hours of recorded video, we observed 3235 visitations by 16 butterfly species. Statistical analysis showed that (1) butterflies avoided visiting flowers occupied by a dead mantis, (2) butterflies avoided resident butterflies that were larger than the visitor, and (3) butterflies showed greater avoidance of a predator when the predator was present together with the resident butterfly than when the predator was located on the opposite flower of the resident. Finally, we discuss the similarities and differences in behavioral responses of butterfly pollinators and bees.

Indexed as

AnimalsButterfliesFlowersPhenotypePollinationPredatory BehaviorVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID27846252
PMCPMC5112811

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.