Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29615611›Full record

ArticleNature communications2018

Spatial fidelity of workers predicts collective response to disturbance in a social insect.

James D Crall, Nick Gravish, Andrew M Mountcastle, Sarah D Kocher, Robert L Oppenheimer, Naomi E Pierce, Stacey A Combes

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
15.5field-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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Foraging ants as liquid brains: Movement heterogeneity shapes collective efficiency.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. The evolution of division of labour: preconditions and evolutionary feedback.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. When being flexible matters: Ecological underpinnings for the evolution of collective flexibility and task allocation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

James D CrallDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford St., Cambridge, MA, 02143, USA. jcrall@oeb.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8981-3782
Nick GravishMechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California San Diego, Engineer Ln, San Diego, CA, 92161, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8207-7519
Andrew M MountcastleDepartment of Biology, Bates College, 2 Andrews Road, Lewiston, ME, 04240, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7204-266X
Sarah D KocherLewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08540, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5586-0727
Robert L OppenheimerDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of New Hampshire, 105 Main St., Durham, NH, 03824, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4846-654X
Naomi E PierceDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford St., Cambridge, MA, 02143, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3366-1625
Stacey A CombesDepartment of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1586-6459
Harvard University · USBates College · USPrinceton University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of New Hampshire · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals in social insect colonies cooperate to perform collective work. While colonies often respond to changing environmental conditions by flexibly reallocating workers to different tasks, the factors determining which workers switch and why are not well understood. Here, we use an automated tracking system to continuously monitor nest behavior and foraging activity of uniquely identified workers from entire bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) colonies foraging in a natural outdoor environment. We show that most foraging is performed by a small number of workers and that the intensity and distribution of foraging is actively regulated at the colony level in response to forager removal. By analyzing worker nest behavior before and after forager removal, we show that spatial fidelity of workers within the nest generates uneven interaction with relevant localized information sources, and predicts which workers initiate foraging after disturbance. Our results highlight the importance of spatial fidelity for structuring information flow and regulating collective behavior in social insect colonies.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorNesting BehaviorSocial BehaviorAnimalsBeesEcologyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPrincipal Component Analysis

Identifiers

PMID29615611
PMCPMC5882771
OpenAlexW2796270448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.