Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32420844›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2020

Sensory bias and signal detection trade-offs maintain intersexual floral mimicry.

Avery L Russell, David W Kikuchi, Noah W Giebink, Daniel R Papaj

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Signal detection, acceptance thresholds and the evolution of animal recognition systems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Avery L RussellDepartment of Biology, Missouri State University, 910 South John Q Hammons Parkway, Springfield, MO 65897, USA.
David W KikuchiWissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Berlin 14193, Germany.
Noah W GiebinkDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 87521, USA.
Daniel R PapajDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 87521, USA.
University of Arizona · USMissouri State University · US

Funding

POST DOCTORAL EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH AND TEACHINGK12GM000708 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI STRAUSFELD, NICHOLAS J · 2000 to 2018
$21.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS K12 GM000708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mimicry is common in interspecies interactions, yet conditions maintaining Batesian mimicry have been primarily tested in predator-prey interactions. In pollination mutualisms, floral mimetic signals thought to dupe animals into pollinating unrewarding flowers are widespread (greater than 32 plant families). Yet whether animals learn to both correctly identify floral models and reject floral mimics and whether these responses are frequency-dependent is not well understood. We tested how learning affected the effectiveness and frequency-dependence of imperfect Batesian mimicry among flowers using the generalist bumblebee,

Indexed as

Biological MimicryPollinationAnimalsBeesBegoniaceaeFlowersLearningBatesian mimicrycognitionimperfect mimicryintersexual mimicrylearningsignal detection

Identifiers

PMID32420844
PMCPMC7331007
OpenAlexW3025968345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.