Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30833578›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Foundress numbers and the timing of selective events during interactions between figs and fig wasps.

Bao-Fa Sun, Rui-Wu Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  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

2 authors.

Bao-Fa SunCenter for Ecological and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Medical Research, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710072, China. baofa1983@126.com.
Rui-Wu WangCenter for Ecological and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Medical Research, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710072, China. wangrw@nwpu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In intimate mutualisms between hosts and symbionts, selection can act repeatedly over the development times of the interacting individuals. Although much is now known about the overall ecological conditions that favor the evolution of mutualism, a current challenge is to understand how natural selection acts on the number and kinds of partners to shape the evolution and stability of these interactions. Using the obligate fig-fig wasp mutualism, our experiments showed that the proportion of figs developed to maturity increased quickly to 1.0 as the number of foundresses increased, regardless of whether the foundresses carried pollen. Selection against pollen-free wasps did not occur at this early stage in fig development. Within figs that developed, the proportion of galls producing adult wasps remained high as the number of pollen-carrying foundresses increases. In contrast, the proportion of galls producing adult wasps decreased as the number of pollen-free foundresses increased. Viable seed production increased as the number or proportion of pollen-carrying foundresses increased, but the average number of wasp offspring per pollen-carrying foundress was highest when she was the sole foundress. These results show that figs and their pollinator wasps differ in how fitness effects are distributed throughout the development of the interaction and depend on the number and proportion of pollen-carrying foundresses contributing to the interaction. These results suggest that temporal fluctuations in the local number and proportion of pollen-carrying wasps available to enter figs are likely to have strong but different effects on the figs and the wasps.

Indexed as

AnimalsFicusPollinationSeedsWasps

Identifiers

PMID30833578
PMCPMC6399315

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.