Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28533385›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2017

Solitary bees reduce investment in communication compared with their social relatives.

Bernadette Wittwer, Abraham Hefetz, Tovit Simon, Li E K Murphy, Mark A Elgar, Naomi E Pierce, Sarah D Kocher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The Evolution of Bees: Insights from 'Omic Studies.Genome biology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Hymenoptera and biomimetic surfaces: insights and innovations.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Putting hornets on the genomic map.Scientific reports · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Signatures of Positive Selection in the Genome ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  18. Coevolution of social and communicative complexity in lemurs.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  19. Sensory plasticity in a socially plastic bee.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Bernadette WittwerSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Abraham HefetzDepartment of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Tovit SimonDepartment of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Li E K MurphyMuseum of Comparative Zoology, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Mark A ElgarSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Naomi E PierceMuseum of Comparative Zoology, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Sarah D KocherMuseum of Comparative Zoology, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; skocher@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social animals must communicate to define group membership and coordinate social organization. For social insects, communication is predominantly mediated through chemical signals, and as social complexity increases, so does the requirement for a greater diversity of signals. This relationship is particularly true for advanced eusocial insects, including ants, bees, and wasps, whose chemical communication systems have been well-characterized. However, we know surprisingly little about how these communication systems evolve during the transition between solitary and group living. Here, we demonstrate that the sensory systems associated with signal perception are evolutionarily labile. In particular, we show that differences in signal production and perception are tightly associated with changes in social behavior in halictid bees. Our results suggest that social species require a greater investment in communication than their solitary counterparts and that species that have reverted from eusociality to solitary living have repeatedly reduced investment in these potentially costly sensory perception systems.

Indexed as

AnimalsBeesBehavior, AnimalBiological EvolutionCommunicationSocial Behaviorcommunicationcomparative methodshalictid beessocial behavior

Identifiers

PMID28533385
PMCPMC5488929

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.