Individual bee foragers are less‐efficient transporters of pollen for plants from which they collect the most pollen in their scopae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: Bees provision most of the pollen removed from anthers to their larvae and transport only a small proportion to stigmas, which can negatively affect plant fitness. Though most bee species collect pollen from multiple plant species, we know little about how the efficiency of bees' pollen transport varies among host plant species or how it relates to other aspects of generalist bee foraging behavior that benefit plant fitness, such as specialization on individual foraging bouts. METHODS: We compared the pollen collected and transported by three bee species for 46 co-occurring plant species. Specifically, we compared the relative abundance of pollen taxa in the individual bees' scopae, structures where bees store pollen to provision larvae, with the relative abundance of pollen taxa on the rest of bees' bodies, which is more likely to be transferred to stigmas. RESULTS: Bees carried five times more pollen grains in their scopae than elsewhere on their bodies. Within foraging bouts, bees were relatively specialized in their pollen collection, but transported proportionally less pollen for the host plants on which they specialized. Across foraging bouts, two bee species transported proportionally less pollen for some of their host plants than for others, though differences didn't consistently follow the same trend as at the foraging bout scale. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that foraging-bout specialization, which is known to reduce heterospecific pollen transfer, also results in less-efficient pollen transport. Thus, bee foragers that visit predominantly one plant species may have contrasting effects on that plant's fitness.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".