Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format
Recent searches

Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format Example of Arthropod-Plant Interactions format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access

Arthropod-Plant Interactions — Template for authors

Publisher: Springer
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Insect Science #41 of 153 -
Agronomy and Crop Science #95 of 347 down down by 5 ranks
Ecology #130 of 400 down down by 1 rank
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics #228 of 647 up up by 16 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
Good
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 318 Published Papers | 972 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 26/06/2020
Related journals
Insights
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Related Journals

open access Open Access

Springer

Quality:  
Good
CiteRatio: 1.7
SJR: 0.453
SNIP: 1.184
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

PLOS

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 7.3
SJR: 2.628
SNIP: 1.713
open access Open Access

Oxford University Press

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 3.9
SJR: 0.87
SNIP: 0.911
open access Open Access

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 4.0
SJR: 0.881
SNIP: 0.986

Journal Performance & Insights

Impact Factor

CiteRatio

Determines the importance of a journal by taking a measure of frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year.

A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

1.466

10% from 2018

Impact factor for Arthropod-Plant Interactions from 2016 - 2019
Year Value
2019 1.466
2018 1.63
2017 1.591
2016 1.441
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

3.1

24% from 2019

CiteRatio for Arthropod-Plant Interactions from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 3.1
2019 2.5
2018 2.5
2017 2.6
2016 2.5
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • Impact factor of this journal has decreased by 10% in last year.
  • This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has increased by 24% in last years.
  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

0.65

9% from 2019

SJR for Arthropod-Plant Interactions from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.65
2019 0.597
2018 0.778
2017 0.839
2016 0.76
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

0.87

17% from 2019

SNIP for Arthropod-Plant Interactions from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.87
2019 0.745
2018 0.795
2017 1.069
2016 0.731
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has increased by 9% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 17% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

Springer

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

Arthropod-Plant Interactions is a quarterly journal committed to the publication of high quality original papers and reviews with a broad fundamental or applied focus on the ecological, biological, and evolutionary aspects of the interactions between insects and other arthropo...... Read More

Agronomy and Crop Science

Insect Science

Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Agricultural and Biological Sciences

i
Last updated on
26 Jun 2020
i
ISSN
1872-8855
i
Impact Factor
Medium - 0.735
i
Open Access
No
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Green faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
SPBASIC
i
Citation Type
Author Year
(Blonder et al, 1982)
i
Bibliography Example
Beenakker CWJ (2006) Specular andreev reflection in graphene. Phys Rev Lett 97(6):067,007, URL 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.067007

Top papers written in this journal

open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1007/S11829-006-9000-1
Visual ecology of aphids-a critical review on the role of colours in host finding
Thomas F. Döring1, Thomas F. Döring2, Lars Chittka1

Abstract:

We review the rich literature on behavioural responses of aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) to stimuli of different colours. Only in one species there are adequate physiological data on spectral sensitivity to explain behaviour crisply in mechanistic terms. Because of the great interest in aphid responses to coloured targets from... We review the rich literature on behavioural responses of aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) to stimuli of different colours. Only in one species there are adequate physiological data on spectral sensitivity to explain behaviour crisply in mechanistic terms. Because of the great interest in aphid responses to coloured targets from an evolutionary, ecological and applied perspective, there is a substantial need to expand these studies to more species of aphids, and to quantify spectral properties of stimuli rigorously. We show that aphid responses to colours, at least for some species, are likely based on a specific colour opponency mechanism, with positive input from the green domain of the spectrum and negative input from the blue and/or UV region. We further demonstrate that the usual yellow preference of aphids encountered in field experiments is not a true colour preference but involves additional brightness effects. We discuss the implications for agriculture and sensory ecology, with special respect to the recent debate on autumn leaf colouration. We illustrate that recent evolutionary theories concerning aphid–tree interactions imply far-reaching assumptions on aphid responses to colours that are not likely to hold. Finally we also discuss the implications for developing and optimising strategies of aphid control and monitoring. read more read less

Topics:

Sensory ecology (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
205 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1007/S11829-009-9068-5
Morphological and chemical components of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of pigeonpea
Hari C. Sharma1, G. Sujana2, G. Sujana1, D. Manohar Rao2

Abstract:

Host plant resistance is an important component for minimizing the losses due to the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera, which is the most devastating pest of pigeonpea. An understanding of different morphological and biochemical components of resistance is essential for developing strategies to breed for resistance to insect pe... Host plant resistance is an important component for minimizing the losses due to the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera, which is the most devastating pest of pigeonpea. An understanding of different morphological and biochemical components of resistance is essential for developing strategies to breed for resistance to insect pests. Therefore, we studied the morphological and biochemical components associated with expression of resistance to H. armigera in wild relatives of pigeonpea to identify accessions with a diverse combination of characteristics associated with resistance to this pest. Among the wild relatives, oviposition non-preference was an important component of resistance in Cajanus scarabaeoides, while heavy egg-laying was recorded on C. cajanifolius (ICPW 28) and Rhynchosia bracteata (ICPW 214). Accessions belonging to R. aurea, C. scarabaeoides, C. sericeus,C. acutifolius, and Flemingia bracteata showed high levels of resistance to H. armigera, while C. cajanifolius was as susceptible as the susceptible check, ICPL 87. Glandular trichomes (type A) on the calyxes and pods were associated with susceptibility to H. armigera, while the non-glandular trichomes (trichome type C and D) were associated with resistance to this insect. Expression of resistance to H. armigera was also associated with low amounts of sugars and high amounts of tannins and polyphenols. Accessions of wild relatives of pigeonpea with non-glandular trichomes (type C and D) or low densities of glandular trichomes (type A), and high amounts of polyphenols and tannins may be used in wide hybridization to develop pigeonpea cultivars with resistance to H. armigera. read more read less

Topics:

Cajanus scarabaeoides (58%)58% related to the paper, Helicoverpa armigera (58%)58% related to the paper
View PDF
172 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1007/S11829-010-9092-5
Effects of nitrogen fertilization on tritrophic interactions
Yigen Chen1, Yigen Chen2, Dawn M. Olson3, John R. Ruberson1

Abstract:

Tritrophic interactions (plant—herbivore—natural enemy) are basic components of nearly all ecosystems, and are often heavily shaped by bottom-up forces. Numerous factors influence plants’ growth, defense, reproduction, and survival. One critical factor in plant life histories and subsequent trophic levels is nitrogen (N). Bec... Tritrophic interactions (plant—herbivore—natural enemy) are basic components of nearly all ecosystems, and are often heavily shaped by bottom-up forces. Numerous factors influence plants’ growth, defense, reproduction, and survival. One critical factor in plant life histories and subsequent trophic levels is nitrogen (N). Because of its importance to plant productivity, N is one of the most frequently used anthropogenic fertilizers in agricultural production and can exert a variety of bottom-up effects and potentially significantly alter tritrophic interactions through various mechanisms. In this paper, the potential effects of N on tritrophic interactions are reviewed. First, in plant-herbivore interactions, N availability can alter quality of the plant (from the herbivore’s nutritional perspective) as food by various means. Second, nitrogen effects can extend directly to natural enemies through herbivores by changes in herbivore quality vis-a-vis the natural enemy, and may even provide herbivores with a defense against natural enemies. Nitrogen also may affect the plant’s indirect defenses, namely the efficacy of natural enemies that kill herbivores attacking the plant. The effects may be expressed via (1) quantitatively and/or qualitatively changing herbivore-induced plant volatiles or other plant features that are crucial for foraging and attack success of natural enemies, (2) modifying plant architecture that might affect natural enemy function, and (3) altering the quality of plant-associated food and shelter for natural enemies. These effects, and their interactive top–down and bottom-up influences, have received limited attention to date, but are of growing significance with the need for expanding global food production (with accompanying use of fertilizer amendments), the widening risks of fertilizer pollution, and the continued increase in atmospheric CO2. read more read less

Topics:

Herbivore (51%)51% related to the paper
123 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1007/S11829-007-9002-7
Mutations perturbing petal cell shape and anthocyanin synthesis influence bumblebee perception of Antirrhinum majus flower colour

Abstract:

We wished to understand the effects on pollinator behaviour of single mutations in plant genes controlling flower appearance. To this end, we analysed snapdragon flowers (Antirrhinum majus), including the mixta and nivea mutants, in controlled laboratory conditions using psychophysical tests with bumblebees. The MIXTA locus c... We wished to understand the effects on pollinator behaviour of single mutations in plant genes controlling flower appearance. To this end, we analysed snapdragon flowers (Antirrhinum majus), including the mixta and nivea mutants, in controlled laboratory conditions using psychophysical tests with bumblebees. The MIXTA locus controls petal epidermal cell shape, and thus the path that incident light takes within the pigment-containing cells. The effect is that mixta mutant flowers are pink in comparison to the wild type purple flowers, and mutants lack the sparkling sheen of wild type flowers that is clearly visible to human observers. Despite their fundamentally different appearance to humans, and even though bees could discriminate the flowers, inexperienced bees exhibited no preference for either type, and the flowers did not differ in their detectability in a Y-maze—either when the flowers appeared in front of a homogeneous or a dappled background. Equally counterintuitive effects were found for the non-pigmented, UV reflecting nivea mutant: even though the overall reflectance intensity and UV signal of nivea flowers is several times that of wild type flowers, their detectability was significantly reduced relative to wild type flowers. In addition, naive foragers preferred wild type flowers over nivea mutants, even though these generated a stronger signal in all receptor types. Our results show that single mutations affecting flower signal can have profound effects on pollinator behaviour—but not in ways predictable by crude assessments via human perception, nor simple quantification of UV signals. However, current models of bee visual perception predict the observed effects very well. read more read less

Topics:

Antirrhinum majus (58%)58% related to the paper, Petal (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
104 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1007/S11829-007-9003-6
Polyphagy and primary host plants: oviposition preference versus larval performance in the lepidopteran pest Helicoverpa armigera
C. N. K. Rajapakse1, Gimme H. Walter1

Abstract:

Oviposition preference and several measures of offspring performance of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) were investigated on a subset of its host plants that were selected for their reputed importance in the field in Australia. They included cotton, pigeon pea, sweet corn, mungbean, bean and common sowthistle. Plants were at th... Oviposition preference and several measures of offspring performance of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) were investigated on a subset of its host plants that were selected for their reputed importance in the field in Australia. They included cotton, pigeon pea, sweet corn, mungbean, bean and common sowthistle. Plants were at their flowering stage when presented to gravid female moths. Flowering pigeon pea evoked far more oviposition than did the other plant species and was the most preferred plant for neonate larval feeding. It also supported development of the most robust larvae and pupae, and these produced the most fecund moths. Common sowthistle and cotton were equally suitable to pigeon pea for larval development, but these two species received far fewer H. armigera eggs than did pigeon pea. Mungbean also received relatively few eggs, but it did support intermediate measures of larval growth and survival. Fewest eggs were laid on bean and it was also the least beneficial in terms of larval growth. Among the host plant species tested, only flowering pigeon pea supported a good relationship between oviposition preference of H. armigera and its subsequent offspring performance. Australian H. armigera moths are thus consistent with Indian H. armigera moths in their ovipositional behaviour and larval performance relative to pigeon pea. The results suggest that the host recognition and acceptance behaviour of this species is fixed across its geographical distribution and they support the theory that pigeon pea might be one of the primary host plants of this insect. These insights, together with published results on the sensory responses of the females to volatiles derived from the different host plant species tested here, help to explain why some plant species are primary targets for the ovipositing moths whereas others are only secondary targets of this polyphagous pest, which has a notoriously broad host range. read more read less

Topics:

Helicoverpa armigera (60%)60% related to the paper, Host (biology) (52%)52% related to the paper
104 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for Arthropod-Plant Interactions.

It automatically formats your research paper to Springer formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Arthropod-Plant Interactions format uses SPBASIC citation style.

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I write Arthropod-Plant Interactions in LaTeX?

Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the Arthropod-Plant Interactions guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the Arthropod-Plant Interactions guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the Arthropod-Plant Interactions guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.

3. Can I cite my article in multiple styles in Arthropod-Plant Interactions?

Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the Arthropod-Plant Interactions citation style.

4. Can I use the Arthropod-Plant Interactions templates for free?

Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for Arthropod-Plant Interactions.

5. Can I use a manuscript in Arthropod-Plant Interactions that I have written in MS Word?

Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper Arthropod-Plant Interactions that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in Arthropod-Plant Interactions?

It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in Arthropod-Plant Interactions.

7. Where can I find the template for the Arthropod-Plant Interactions?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Arthropod-Plant Interactions's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

8. Can I reformat my paper to fit the Arthropod-Plant Interactions's guidelines?

Of course! You can do this using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, our support team is always ready to assist you.

9. Arthropod-Plant Interactions an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's Arthropod-Plant Interactions is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.

10. I cannot find my template in your gallery. Can you create it for me like Arthropod-Plant Interactions?

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like Arthropod-Plant Interactions?”

11. What is the output that I would get after using Arthropod-Plant Interactions?

After writing your paper autoformatting in Arthropod-Plant Interactions, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx, and LaTeX.

12. Is Arthropod-Plant Interactions's impact factor high enough that I should try publishing my article there?

To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.

13. What is Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy for Arthropod-Plant Interactions?

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for Arthropod-Plant Interactions. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

14. What are the most common citation types In Arthropod-Plant Interactions?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for Arthropod-Plant Interactions are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

15. How do I submit my article to the Arthropod-Plant Interactions?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Arthropod-Plant Interactions's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download Arthropod-Plant Interactions in Endnote format?

Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in Arthropod-Plant Interactions Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to Arthropod-Plant Interactions formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template