↓ Skip to main content

Colour as a backup for scent in the presence of olfactory noise: testing the efficacy backup hypothesis using bumblebees (Bombus terrestris)

Overview of attention for article published in Royal Society Open Science, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Colour as a backup for scent in the presence of olfactory noise: testing the efficacy backup hypothesis using bumblebees (Bombus terrestris)
Published in
Royal Society Open Science, November 2017
DOI 10.1098/rsos.170996
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. Lawson, Heather M. Whitney, Sean A. Rands

Abstract

The majority of floral displays simultaneously broadcast signals from multiple sensory modalities, but these multimodal displays come at both a metabolic cost and an increased conspicuousness to floral antagonists. Why then do plants invest in these costly multimodal displays? The efficacy backup hypothesis suggests that individual signal components act as a backup for others in the presence of environmental variability. Here, we test the efficacy backup hypothesis by investigating the ability of bumblebees to differentiate between sets of artificial flowers in the presence of either chemical interference or high wind speeds, both of which have the potential to impede the transmission of olfactory signals. We found that both chemical interference and high wind speeds negatively affected forager learning times, but these effects were mitigated in the presence of a visual signal component. Our results suggest that visual signals can act as a backup for olfactory signals in the presence of chemical interference and high wind speeds, and support the efficacy backup hypothesis as an explanation for the evolution of multimodal floral displays.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Unspecified 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 65%
Unspecified 5 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,606,639
of 11,527,409 outputs
Outputs from Royal Society Open Science
#806
of 1,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,509
of 303,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Royal Society Open Science
#75
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,527,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 51.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.