Foraging Navigation of Hornets Studied in Natural Habitats and Laboratory Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foraging flights have been studied in three species of hornets (Vespa mandarinia, V. simillima and V. analis) in the field and the laboratory. Hornets seem to use multiple navigational cues for visiting a familiar feeding place. They could orient towards the feeding place immediately after they rose in air from the nest without directly viewing the feeder. They could visit the feeding place after dark at a luminosity 8 lux. These data suggest that they can navigate for some distance with few external cues. Hornets also seem to rely on visual cues for their mid-range navigation. They used some structures on their way as navigational landmarks to negotiate. Individual hornets are supposed to have their own landmarks. Olfactory cues seem to be used to find a new feeding place or to recruit other member. In the approach flight hornets seemed to use multiple visual cues such as the visual characteristics of the feeder and the wider scenery around the feeder. Even if the feeder in training was removed during the test, they flew with a smooth course as if they were pin-pointing the missing feeder, but without sitting on the ground. Hornets learnt how to fly to reach the feeder without external cues after passing by the last visual landmark under conditions with extremely poor visual cues. The present work suggests that hornets retain multiple navigational cues during repeated foraging behavior, and which cues they use seems to depend upon environmental conditions.
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".