Wing wear affects wing use and choice of floral density in foraging bumble bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Damage to structures that enable mobility can potentially influence foraging behavior. Bumble bees vary in extent of individual wing wear, a trait predicted to affect mechanical performance during foraging. This study asks 1) do bumble bees distribute themselves across different floral densities in accordance with their concurrent wing wear? and 2) does wing use in foraging bumble bees depend on concurrent wing wear? We observed individually identifiable bumble bees foraging in 1-m2 patches of high and low floral density of 3 plant types (Geranium viscosissimum, Melilotus alba/officinalis, and Monarda fistulosa). Bee preference for flower density was determined by an interaction between wing area and bee body size: small worn-winged bees selected patches of higher density, whereas large worn-winged bees selected patches of lower density. Bees with more worn wings spent less time in flight and flew less often; however, only foragers collecting pollen appeared to reduce wing-use behavior (i.e., wing collision frequency) that leads to loss of wing area. This study demonstrates that individuals respond to wing damage in different ways depending on their body size and foraging task. Wing wear clearly influences foraging behavior of worker bumble bee.
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".