Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27357683›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016

Macronutrient ratios in pollen shape bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) foraging strategies and floral preferences.

Anthony D Vaudo, Harland M Patch, David A Mortensen, John F Tooker, Christina M Grozinger

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
76.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

140 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 350 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Nutrient niche dynamics among wild pollinators.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anthony D VaudoDepartment of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; adv124@psu.edu.
Harland M PatchDepartment of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
David A MortensenDepartment of Plant Science, Center for Pollinator Research, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
John F TookerDepartment of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
Christina M GrozingerDepartment of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
Pennsylvania State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To fuel their activities and rear their offspring, foraging bees must obtain a sufficient quality and quantity of nutritional resources from a diverse plant community. Pollen is the primary source of proteins and lipids for bees, and the concentrations of these nutrients in pollen can vary widely among host-plant species. Therefore we hypothesized that foraging decisions of bumble bees are driven by both the protein and lipid content of pollen. By successively reducing environmental and floral cues, we analyzed pollen-foraging preferences of Bombus impatiens in (i) host-plant species, (ii) pollen isolated from these host-plant species, and (iii) nutritionally modified single-source pollen diets encompassing a range of protein and lipid concentrations. In our semifield experiments, B impatiens foragers exponentially increased their foraging rates of pollen from plant species with high protein:lipid (P:L) ratios; the most preferred plant species had the highest ratio (∼4.6:1). These preferences were confirmed in cage studies where, in pairwise comparisons in the absence of other floral cues, B impatiens workers still preferred pollen with higher P:L ratios. Finally, when presented with nutritionally modified pollen, workers were most attracted to pollen with P:L ratios of 5:1 and 10:1, but increasing the protein or lipid concentration (while leaving ratios intact) reduced attraction. Thus, macronutritional ratios appear to be a primary factor driving bee pollen-foraging behavior and may explain observed patterns of host-plant visitation across the landscape. The nutritional quality of pollen resources should be taken into consideration when designing conservation habitats supporting bee populations.

Indexed as

BeesFood PreferencesAnimalsLipidsPlant ProteinsPollenLipidsPlant Proteinsforaging behaviornutritional ecologypollenpollinatorpreferences

Identifiers

PMID27357683
PMCPMC4948365
OpenAlexW2471536004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.