Unveiling the submerged secrets: bumblebee queens' resilience to flooding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous study, an experimental oversight led to the accumulation of water filling a container housing diapausing bumblebee queens. Surprisingly, after draining the water, queens were found to be alive. This observation raises a compelling question: can bumblebee queens endure periods of inundation while overwintering underground? To address this question, we conducted an experiment using 143 common eastern bumblebee (Bombus impatiens) queens placed in soil-filled tubes and subjected to artificially-induced diapause in a refrigerated unit for seven days. Tap water was then added to the tubes and queens (n=21/treatment) were either maintained underwater using a plunger-like apparatus or left to float naturally on the water’s surface for varying durations (8h, 24h, or 7 days) while remaining in overwintering conditions. Seventeen queens served as controls. After the submersion period, queens were removed from water, transferred to new tubes with soil, and kept in cold storage for 8 weeks. Overall queen survival remained consistently high (89.5 ± 6.4%) across all treatments and did not differ among submersion regimes and durations. These results demonstrate the remarkable ability of diapausing B. impatiens queens to withstand submersion underwater for up to one week, indicating their adaptations to survive periods of flooding in the wild.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".