Trapping studies reveal phenology and reproductive behaviour in two solitary sweat bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To reconstruct behavioural changes that underpin evolutionary transitions between solitary and eusocial behaviour, we need detailed behavioural information about both solitary and eusocial species. Most behavioural studies of sweat bees have focused on sociality. We addressed the lack of detailed information about solitary species using pinned specimens of Lasioglossum leucozonium (Schrank) and L. zonulum (Smith) from Ontario (2003–2019) and Alberta (2016). We used weekly abundance of trapped bees to evaluate flight phenology (univoltine versus bivoltine), delineating two phases of flight activity, P1 and P2, before and after the first appearance of males, and evaluated female traits related to reproduction (body size, wear, and ovary development). All populations were confirmed to be solitary. The Ontario L. leucozonium and Alberta L. zonulum were univoltine, with P1 and P2 females being similar in size but P2 females more worn and with less-developed ovaries. Ontario L. zonulum were bivoltine, with P2 females being larger, more worn, and having more ovary development than P1 females, a unique pattern among bivoltine sweat bees. Contrasting observations between univoltine and bivoltine populations support the contention that solitary reproduction is not necessarily “simple” and that detailed information is needed to illuminate behavioural changes during bee social evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".