Pollen foraging mediates exposure to dichotomous stressor syndromes in honey bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent declines in the health of honey bee colonies used for crop pollination pose a considerable threat to global food security. Foraging by honey bee workers represents the primary route of exposure to a plethora of toxins and pathogens known to affect bee health, but it remains unclear how foraging preferences impact colony-level patterns of stressor exposure. Resolving this knowledge gap is crucial for enhancing the health of honey bees and the agricultural systems that rely on them for pollination. To address this, we carried out a national-scale experiment encompassing 456 Canadian honey bee colonies to first characterize pollen foraging preferences in relation to major crops and then explore how foraging behavior influences patterns of stressor exposure. We used a metagenetic approach to quantify honey bee dietary breadth and found that bees display distinct foraging preferences that vary substantially relative to crop type and proximity, and the breadth of foraging interactions can be used to predict the abundance and diversity of stressors a colony is exposed to. Foraging on diverse plant communities was associated with increased exposure to pathogens, while the opposite was associated with increased exposure to xenobiotics. Our work provides the first large-scale empirical evidence that pollen foraging behavior plays an influential role in determining exposure to dichotomous stressor syndromes in honey bees.
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".