Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34363525›Full record

ArticleOecologia2021

Challenging the Preference-Performance Hypothesis in an above-belowground insect.

Kathleen Menacer, Anne Marie Cortesero, Maxime R Hervé

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2021. 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Kathleen MenacerIGEPP-UMR 1349, INRAE, Institut Agro, Univ Rennes 1, 35000, Rennes, France. kathleen.menacer@univ-rennes1.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8212-2196
Anne Marie CorteseroIGEPP-UMR 1349, INRAE, Institut Agro, Univ Rennes 1, 35000, Rennes, France.
Maxime R HervéIGEPP-UMR 1349, INRAE, Institut Agro, Univ Rennes 1, 35000, Rennes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relationship between female oviposition preference and offspring performance has been a question of special interest in the study of host plant selection by phytophagous insects. The Preference-Performance Hypothesis (PPH) is one of the main hypotheses proposed to explain this relationship, stating that females should preferentially lay eggs on plants providing the best larval development. The PPH has been extensively tested on aboveground insects but its application to species with belowground larvae is still mostly unknown. In this study, the PPH was quantitatively tested in an above-belowground insect, the cabbage root fly Delia radicum. Female oviposition preference and larval performance were estimated on three brassicaceous species (Brassica oleracea, Brassica rapa, and Sinapis alba) as well as between four cultivars of B. rapa and four cultivars of S. alba. Larval performance was estimated through their survival and through three life-history traits (LHT) of emerging adults. The PPH was supported at the intraspecific scale but only in B. rapa and for some, but not all, of the life-history traits. No support for the PPH was found in S. alba as well as at the interspecific scale. This study pleads for the integration of insects with both above- and belowground life stages in the preference-performance debate. Moreover, it raises the importance of measuring several variables to estimate larval performance and to test the PPH quantitatively, both at the plant intraspecific and interspecific scales, before drawing general conclusions.

Indexed as

BrassicaOvipositionAnimalsInsectaLarvaSinapisBrassicaceaeDelia radicumHost plant selectionPlant–insect interactions

Identifiers

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.