MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394866843 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2023.0609

Unveiling the submerged secrets: bumblebee queens' resilience to flooding

2024· article· en· W4394866843 on OpenAlexafffund
Sabrina Rondeau, Nigel E. Raıne

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWeston Family FoundationL'Oreal USA
KeywordsSubmersion (mathematics)BiologyBumblebeeOverwinteringLitterFlooding (psychology)EcologyZoologyPollinator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 7 days. Tap water was then added to the tubes and queens ( n = 21 per treatment) were either maintained underwater using a plunger-like apparatus or left to float naturally on the water’s surface for varying durations (8 h, 24 h 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 eight 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 under water 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207