Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39904815›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2025

Oviposition Dynamics and Niche Utilization in Two Sympatric Drosophila Species.

Rolando D Moreira-Soto, Bill S Hansson, Markus Knaden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2025. 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

3 authors.

Rolando D Moreira-SotoDepartment of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany.
Bill S HanssonDepartment of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany.
Markus KnadenDepartment of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany. mknaden@ice.mpg.de.

Funding

Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst 57440921
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many Drosophila species coexist by sharing their feeding and breeding sites, which may influence their oviposition choices in an interspecies social context. Whether and where to lay eggs is a crucial decision for female flies as it influences the success of their offspring, by minimizing the risk of predation, competition, or cannibalism. Significant gaps exist in our understanding of Drosophila oviposition dynamics in co-occurring species. Here we tested oviposition strategies of Drosophila melanogaster and its close relative Drosophila simulans under different conditions, to assess whether a single female would prefer to oviposit separately or together with another female, be it a conspecific or not. We find that ovipositing females, regardless whether they are conspecifics or not, prefer to oviposit at the same site. This might suggest that the flies regard the benefits of sharing oviposition sites as higher than the potential risks of competition or cannibalism. The willingness to share oviposition sites was lower when the nutritional value of the medium was increased by adding yeast, and was lost when flies were allowed to lay the eggs consecutively, instead of being tested together. The latter might be explained by our additional finding that females become attracted by the presence of other females on oviposition substrates and that this attraction is partly driven by visual cues. Ovipositing in groups might facilitate intra- and interspecific social feeding of same age offspring, as well as enrichment of microbes. However, this cooperation dynamic might change if another female's offspring is already present, as it might be perceived as danger of competition or cannibalism.

Indexed as

DrosophilaDrosophila melanogasterDrosophila simulansOvipositionAnimalsFemaleSympatryAggregationCoexistenceDrosophilaInterspecies interactionNiche utilizationOviposition behavior

Identifiers

PMID39904815
PMCPMC11794365

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.