↓ Skip to main content

Bumblebees distinguish floral scent patterns, and can transfer these to corresponding visual patterns

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Bumblebees distinguish floral scent patterns, and can transfer these to corresponding visual patterns
Published in
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, June 2018
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2018.0661
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Flowers act as multisensory billboards to pollinators by using a range of sensory modalities such as visual patterns and scents. Different floral organs release differing compositions and quantities of the volatiles contributing to floral scent, suggesting that scent may be patterned within flowers. Early experiments suggested that pollinators can distinguish between the scents of differing floral regions, but little is known about how these potential scent patterns might influence pollinators. We show that bumblebees can learn different spatial patterns of the same scent, and that they are better at learning to distinguish between flowers when the scent pattern corresponds to a matching visual pattern. Surprisingly, once bees have learnt the spatial arrangement of a scent pattern, they subsequently prefer to visit novel unscented flowers that have an identical arrangement of visual marks, suggesting that multimodal floral signals may exploit the mechanisms by which learnt information is stored by the bee.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Other 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 51%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Environmental Science 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Engineering 1 1%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 14 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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 07 January 2019.
All research outputs
#227,816
of 14,587,214 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#675
of 7,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,861
of 275,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#24
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,587,214 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 275,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.