Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 410

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The structure of an aphid–parasitoid community

MU­Ller, C. B., Adriaanse, I. C. T., Belshaw, R., Godfray, H. C. J.·1999·Journal of Animal Ecology

Abstract

1.A quantitative parasitoid web was constructed describing the trophic relationships between the community of aphids, parasitoids and secondary parasitoids in an abandoned field in southern England. Root aphids were omitted and secondary parasitoids were associated with aphids rather than primary parasitoids. All aphids, parasitoids and trophic links were expressed in the same units (m−2). Over a 2‐year period, separate webs were constructed for every month that aphids and parasitoids were active in the field. 2.Twenty‐six species of plants were attacked by 25 species of aphid which were parasitized by 18 species of primary parasitoids. The primary parasitoids were attacked by 28 species of secondary parasitoids, of which 18 directly attacked the still living aphid (hyperparasitoids) and 10 attacked the aphid after mummification (mummy parasitoids). The aphids were attended by three species of ants. 3.Eleven webs were constructed for the months May to September 1994 and May to October 1995. Aphids and primary parasitoids were most abundant and diverse in June, and secondary parasitoids one month later. 4.The ratios of the number of aphid species to the number of species of primary parasitoid and hyperparasitoid were relatively constant across webs, as was the ratio of the number of links involving hyperparasitoids and mummy parasitoids. The ratio of the total number of links to the total number of species increased with web size. 5.The relative abundance of the species in the different webs was well described by a Dirichlet distribution with a common parameter. This implies a gamma distribution of aphid abundances in the field with few common and many rare species. 6.Predator (i.e. parasitoid) overlap graphs were constructed to assess the potential for indirect interactions between aphids. Mummy parasitoids were the most important group linking different aphids. A quantitative overlap diagram was developed to illustrate the potential strengths of indirect linkages. Common aphid species shared few strong, indirect links via primary parasitoids or hyperparasitoids, but could be strongly linked by mummy parasitoids. Symmetrical links were uncommon, and rare species were potentially strongly influenced by the presence of common aphids with which they shared parasitoids. 7.Ant‐attended aphids were attacked by fewer species of primary parasitoids and hyperparasitoids than those species not attended by ants. Species of mummy parasitoids attack, on average, approximately twice the number of host species than species of either primary parasitoids or hyperparasitoids.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00288.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 410

Metadata

Authors
MU­Ller, C. B., Adriaanse, I. C. T., Belshaw, R., & Godfray, H. C. J.
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-03
Volume
68
Issue
2
Pages
346-370
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
OpenAlex
W1986017734
Cited by
410
References
6
FWCI
23.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The structure of an aphid–parasitoid community. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00288.x
The paper
MU­Ller, C. B., Adriaanse, I. C. T., Belshaw, R., & Godfray, H. C. J. (1999). The structure of an aphid–parasitoid community. Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00288.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.