ReviewJournal of chemical ecology2018
Chemical Communication and Reproduction Partitioning in Social Wasps.
Review in Journal of chemical ecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paper wasps: A model clade for social cognition.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2024Article
- Assessment of the In Vivo and In Vitro Release of Chemical Compounds fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Chemically Insignificant Social Parasites Exhibit More Anti-Dehydration Behaviors than Their Hosts.Insects · 2021Article
- Expansion and Accelerated Evolution of 9-Exon Odorant Receptors in Polistes Paper Wasps.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Age and social experience induced plasticity across brain regions of the paper waspBiology letters · 2021Article
- Reproductive inhibition among nestmate queens in the invasive Argentine ant.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Pheromonal Regulation of the Reproductive Division of Labor in Social Insects.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020Review
- Preface: Pheromone-Mediation of Female Reproduction and Reproductive Dominance in Social Species.Journal of chemical ecology · 2018Article
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
Abstract
Social wasps encompass species displaying diverse social organization regarding colony cycle, nest foundation, caste differences (from none to significant dimorphism) and number of reproductive queens. Current phylogenetic data suggests that sociality occured independently in the subfamily Stenogastrinae and in the Polistinae+Vespinae clade. In most species, including those with the simplest social organization, colony reproduction is monopolised by a single or few females. Since their nest mates can also develop ovaries and lay eggs, dominant females must somehow inhibit them from reproducing. Physical interactions in the form of open aggression or, usually, ritualised dominance by the fertile females contribute to fertility inhibition in several species, but it is unlikely to function in large colonies. In the latter case, reproduction within the colony is likely to be regulated through pheromones. Relatively little is known about these semiochemicals. Studies on all the three social wasp subfamilies, revealed that cuticular hydrocarbon components differ in abundance between egg-laying and not egg-laying females and that their composition depends on fertility status. In several species, females have been reported to manifestly react towards females with activated ovaries, but there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that fertile individuals are either recognized through their CHC composition, or that over-represented CHC constituents can inhibit fertility. Moreover, very little information exists on the possibility that exocrine glands release fertility signals or chemicals inhibiting fertility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29785627What 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.