The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta‐analysis of preference–performance relationships in phytophagous insects
Abstract
Ecology Letters (2010) 13: 383–393 The extent to which behavioural choices reflect fine‐tuned evolutionary adaptation remains an open debate. For herbivorous insects, the preference–performance hypothesis (PPH) states that female insects will evolve to oviposit on hosts on which their offspring fare best. In this study, we use meta‐analysis to assess the balance of evidence for and against the PPH, and to evaluate the role of individual factors proposed to influence host selection by female insects. We do so in an explicitly bitrophic context (herbivores versus plants). Overall, our analyses offer clear support for the PPH: Offspring survive better on preferred plant types, and females lay more eggs on plant types conducive to offspring performance. We also found evidence for an effect of diet breadth on host choice: female preference for ‘good quality plants’ was stronger in oligophagous insects than in polyphagous insects. Nonetheless, despite the large numbers of preference–performance studies conducted to date, sample sizes in our meta‐analysis are low due to the inconsistent format used by authors to present their results. To improve the situation, we invite authors to contribute to the data base emerging from this work, with the aim of reaching a strengthened synthesis of the subject field.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus
Lima, S. L., & Dill, L. M. (1990) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z90-092 · Cited by 8,196
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 · Cited by 7,770
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
Plant Apparency and Chemical Defense
Feeny, P. (1976) · Biochemical Interaction Between Plants and Insects · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2646-5_1 · Cited by 2,344
Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review
Pyke, G. H. (1984) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.15.1.523 · Cited by 2,210
Intraspecific Variation in Body Size and Fecundity in Insects: A General Relationship
Honěk, A., & Honek, A. (1993) · Oikos · doi:10.2307/3544943 · Cited by 1,690
Schoonhoven, L. M., Jermy, T., & van Loon, J. J. A. (1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3200-6 · Cited by 1,686
Host-Plant Selection by Phytophagous Insects
Bernays, E. A., & Chapman, R. E. (1994) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/b102508 · Cited by 1,513
Host Specialization in Phytophagous Insects
JAENIKE, J. R. (1990) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.21.110190.001331 · Cited by 1,200
Metadata
- Authors
- Gripenberg, S., Mayhew, P. J., Parnell, M., & Roslin, T.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02-19
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 383-393
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2005894934
- Cited by
- 892
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 49.20
- 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: A meta‐analysis of preference–performance relationships in phytophagous insects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01433.x
- The paper
- Gripenberg, S., Mayhew, P. J., Parnell, M., & Roslin, T. (2010). A meta‐analysis of preference–performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01433.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.