Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38165887›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Local ecological factors, not interference competition, drive the foundress number of two species of fig wasp sharing Ficus septica figs.

Bruno Di Giusto, Anthony Bain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Bruno Di GiustoJournalism and Mass Communication Program, International College, Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Anthony BainDepartment of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-6142-8137

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies have challenged assumptions about the classic fig-fig wasp pollination mutualism model, suggesting that further investigation into the receptive phase of fig development is needed. This study assessed the pollination mechanisms of Ficus septica in southern Taiwan and identified two species of wasps as the primary pollinators. Machine learning was used to identify and rank the factors that explain the relative abundance of these wasps. The two wasp species showed the highest level of cohabitation ever reported in the literature, with three-quarters of the figs containing multiple foundresses. The study also reported re-emerged foundresses and a 10% ratio of pollinated figs without foundresses. Local factors, such as the sampling period and tree identity, were the best predictors of the presence and number of each foundress species, with fig size also affecting the number of foundresses. The study highlights the variability in pollinator abundance between figs, crops, and trees. It also shows that the local environment of the trees and the availability of figs are crucial factors in determining which figs the pollinator wasps choose. These findings challenge assumptions about the classic mutualism model and suggest that long-term surveys are needed to estimate the relative contributions of each partner and provide data for evolutionary and ecological models. This study also provides valuable insights into the factors that affect the abundance and interactions of pollinator wasps during the receptive phase of fig development, with implications for understanding the behaviour of pollinating wasps and advancing our knowledge of population dynamics in Ficus species.

Indexed as

FicusWaspsAnimalsBiological EvolutionPollinationSymbiosisTrees

Identifiers

PMID38165887
PMCPMC10760673

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.