RESOURCE TRACKING BY BUMBLE BEES: RESPONSES TO PLANT-LEVEL DIFFERENCES IN QUALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study considers how a forager moves through its environment when food is patchily distributed and the patches differ in quality. One possibility is to move directionally among patches, staying longer in the best patches (the “Local-Experience Hypothesis”). Additionally, when foragers reuse patches in a regenerating environment, they can potentially benefit from remembering the most profitable patches, and return preferentially to these (the “Memory Hypothesis”). Both hypotheses were tested with foraging bumble bees (Bombus spp.) collecting nectar in the foothills and mountains of southwest Alberta, Canada. Individually marked worker bumble bees were observed visiting flowers on focal plants of five species visited primarily by bumble bees. In three plant species (Epilobium angustifolium, Hedysarum alpinum, and Penstemon confertus), variation in nectar secretion rate was experimentally induced by defoliation and fertilization of individual plants. In the other two species (H. sulphurescens and Oxytropis monticola), bees' responses to natural variation in plant-level nectar secretion were measured. Considering the bee population as a whole, plants with higher nectar production rates attracted more bees (three of five plant species) and had more of their flowers visited (three of five plant species). The Local-Experience Hypothesis was supported in three of the five plant species: individual bees stayed longer by visiting more flowers on plants with higher rates of nectar production. The Memory Hypothesis was supported in four of the five plant species; individual bees were more likely to return to plants with higher rates of nectar secretion. Overall, there was a positive correlation between the extent to which individual plants differed in their rate of nectar secretion (a species-level trait), and the strength of support for the Memory Hypothesis (measured as a standardized effect size). That is, individual bumble bees more strongly adjusted their visitation rate based on plant quality as the magnitude of natural differences in plant quality increased. Support for the Memory Hypothesis may explain why bumble bees often revisit the same plants on successive foraging trips: memory for good plants gives them a fitness advantage over naïve bees using the same area. Bumble bees appear to use a relatively sophisticated spatial memory in resource tracking, which may constrain the evolution of empty-flower strategies of plant nectar secretion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".