↓ 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Readers on

mendeley
38 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 61 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Researcher 8 21%
Unspecified 6 16%
Student > Master 6 16%
Other 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 47%
Unspecified 9 24%
Environmental Science 4 11%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. 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 15 September 2018.
All research outputs
#155,880
of 12,298,022 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#488
of 7,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,807
of 261,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#20
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,298,022 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 7,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 261,749 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 97% 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 87% of its contemporaries.