Large fitness benefits of social nesting in a small carpenter bee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Facultatively social insects are an optimal model group for the study of the emergence of cooperation between individuals. Factors influencing the fitness benefits of social nesting are still debated. Nonreproductive subordinates can benefit from indirect fitness benefits due to increasing reproductive success of related individuals or direct fitness benefits due to direct future reproduction. Here, we studied the costs and benefits of social nesting in the small carpenter bee Ceratina albosticta. From demographic data and within-nest relatedness, we obtained key parameters for assessing the fitness of solitary females, social primaries, and social secondaries. C. albosticta were found to usually mate with one male and multiple mating is not common although exists at low frequencies. Social nests usually contain two females, which were found to be related (full sisters), but also some females were unrelated to each other. Patterns of parentage from microsatellite loci revealed that only one female reproduces in social nests. Our results show that relatedness, per capita brood productivity, and offspring survival strongly increase the fitness benefits of social nesting strategies. Social secondaries, when related to the social primaries, have higher inclusive fitness than solitary females, but unrelated social nesting females had no indirect fitness and much reduced inclusive fitness compared to solitary females. Interestingly, average fitness benefits of the social secondary were higher than solitary females. This study provides important empirical data on the costs and benefits of sociality in a facultatively social bee and sets the stage for future comparative studies.
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".