MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2304869387 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12644

Chronic exposure to a neonicotinoid pesticide alters the interactions between bumblebees and wild plants

2016· article· en· W2304869387 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilW. Garfield Weston FoundationGarfield Weston FoundationWellcome TrustDirectorate for Biological SciencesWellcome
KeywordsBumblebeeBiologyLotus corniculatusPollinatorForagingPesticideNectarForageNeonicotinoidPollinationRepensEcologyPollenToxicologyAgronomyImidacloprid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Insect pollinators are essential for both the production of a large proportion of world crops and the health of natural ecosystems. As important pollinators, bumblebees must learn to forage on flowers to feed both themselves and provision their colonies. Increased use of pesticides has caused concern over sublethal effects on bees, such as impacts on reproduction or learning ability. However, little is known about how sublethal exposure to field‐realistic levels of pesticide might affect the ability of bees to visit and manipulate flowers. We observed the behaviour of individual bumblebees from colonies chronically exposed to a neonicotinoid pesticide (10 ppb thiamethoxam) or control solutions foraging for the first time on an array of morphologically complex wildflowers ( Lotus corniculatus and Trifolium repens ) in an outdoor flight arena. We found that more bees released from pesticide‐treated colonies became foragers, and that they visited more L. corniculatus flowers than controls. Interestingly, bees exposed to pesticide collected pollen more often than controls, but control bees learnt to handle flowers efficiently after fewer learning visits than bees exposed to pesticide. There were also different initial floral preferences of our treatment groups; control bees visited a higher proportion of T. repens flowers, and bees exposed to pesticide were more likely to choose L. corniculatus on their first visit. Our results suggest that the foraging behaviour of bumblebees on real flowers can be altered by sublethal exposure to field‐realistic levels of pesticide. This has implications for the foraging success and persistence of bumblebee colonies, but perhaps more importantly for the interactions between wild plants and flower‐visiting insects and ability of bees to deliver the crucial pollination services to plants necessary for ecosystem functioning.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it