Talk:Myrmecophily

Insects: Ants Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Ant task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

90% decline in survival rate?

The article claimed: "one study conducted by Pierce and colleagues in Colorado experimentally demonstrated that survival rates of G. lygdymus larvae declined 85-90% when ant partners were excluded." In that paper, I couldn't find such a number — maybe I missed it? Instead, I could read that when tended by F. podzolica, they found that the larval disappearance rate was about 70% and parasitism rate was 9%-12% compared to about 80% and 33%, respectively, for untended larvae. And for other ant species they experimented with, the effect on the larvae was neutral or altogether harmful. According to my calculations, this gives approximately 50% better survival rate (0.3*0.9=27% for larvae tended by F. podzolica vs. 0.2*0.67=13% for untended larvae). So I changed the text. Jaan Vajakas (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview – last sentence:

"This is partly because larger colonies have greater specializations, so more diversity of ecological within the nests, allowing for more diversity and population sizes among the myrmecophiles."

---> "more diversity of ecological within the nests,"

There seems to be a word missing after "ecological", isn't it? (Or the word order got mixed up?)

Can anyone find out (easily) what it was that probably got lost accidentally in a previous edit? Or can guess the missing word more easily than I? 2A02:3030:819:6587:1:0:C543:F32 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]