Male bumblebees adapt foraging to environmental conditions to sustain mate-seeking efforts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Male bees navigate complex trade-offs between energy acquisition and reproductive signalling, yet their movement strategies remain understudied. Unlike workers that optimise foraging to support the colony, males forage independently to collect nectar and deposit sex pheromones on selected plants. Using high-resolution 3D tracking in an indoor flight cage, we investigated how the spatial arrangement of nectar and scent-marking sites, along with nectar availability, influence male movement patterns. We manipulated the distribution of feeders (artificial flowers) and scent-marking locations (branches), and varied nectar delivery rates, to assess effects on foraging, scent-marking, and patrolling. Males responded strongly to spatial structure: in clumped arrays with evenly spaced resources, movements between consecutive visits were shorter and more localised, while in dispersed arrays with irregular spacing, transitions were longer and more variable. The combination of dispersed spacing and low nectar availability imposed the highest foraging demands, resulting in fewer feeding events and reduced total feeding time. Despite these increased costs, males maintained consistent investment in reproductive behaviours, suggesting a prioritisation of mate-seeking over energy gain. Rather than reducing signalling, males adjusted their foraging strategy—favouring fewer but prolonged feeding bouts when nectar availability allowed. These findings reveal a unidirectional behavioural adjustment, in which foraging is modulated to sustain reproductive effort, and show how spatial resource structure and nectar availability together shape movement decisions in male pollinators. LAY SUMMARY Male bumblebees keep searching for mates even when food is scarce, adjusting how they forage to conserve energy. Using 3D tracking in a controlled environment, we found that males reduce foraging effort but maintain reproductive behaviours. This shows how animals balance survival and reproduction in changing environments, offering new insights into pollinator behaviour and resilience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".