Global patterns in bumble bee pollen collection show phylogenetic conservation of diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bumble bees (Bombus) are a group of eusocial bees with a strongly generalised feeding pattern, collecting pollen from many different botanical families. Though predominantly generalists, some bumble bee species seem to have restricted dietary choices. It is unclear whether restricted diets in bumble bees are inherent or a function of local conditions due to a lack of data for many species across different regions. The objective of this study was to determine whether bumble bee species displayed specific patterns of pollen collection, and whether patterns were influenced by phylogenetic relatedness or tongue length, a trait known to be associated with structuring floral visitation. Bumble bee pollen collection patterns were quantified from 4,132 pollen loads taken from 58 bumble bee species, representing 24% of the pollen-collecting diversity of this genus. Phylogenetic trait mapping showed a conserved pattern of dietary dissimilarity across species, but not for dietary breadth. Dietary dissimilarity was driven by collection of Fabaceae, with the most similar species collecting around 50%-60% of their diet from this botanical family. The proportion of the diet collected from Fabaceae also showed a conserved phylogenetic signal. Greater collection of Fabaceae was associated with longer tongue lengths, with shorter tongued species focusing on alternative botanical families. However, this result was largely driven by phylogenetic relatedness, not tongue length per se. These results demonstrate that, though generalists, bumble bees are still subject to dietary restrictions that constrain their foraging choices. These dietary constraints have implications for their persistence should their core resources decline in abundance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".