The role of floral oils in the evolution of apid bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most bees collect pollen and nectar for their larvae, while some also collect other resources. We investigated the evolution of floral oil-collecting behaviour in the Apidae and the evolutionary effects of floral oils on host brood cells for cuckoo bees. Focusing on apid bee phylogeny, we reconstructed the evolution of floral oil collection by females, use of floral oils in cell construction and the inclusion of oils in provisioning immatures. Ancestral character reconstruction demonstrates that floral oil-collecting behaviour arose four times independently. We also found that in cuckoo bees, parasitization of oil-collecting bees arose three times (including one secondary return) in Apidae. Except for Ctenoplectrina, oil cuckoo bees are all closely related to each other, forming an independent clade within the Nomadinae. Analysis of evolutionary transition rates indicates that there is a greater tendency for switching from an oil-collecting host to a non-oil-collecting host than the reverse. In apid bees, evolutionary transition rates are higher for switching to cuckoo behaviour from an ancestral lineage in which females collect floral oils than from other pollen-collecting lineages. We conclude that adaptation to oil collection is advantageous for pollen-collecting bees, and that the origin of oil cuckoo bees from non-oil cuckoo bees is constrained.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".