Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30275496›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

The prevalence of olfactory- versus visual-signal encounter by searching bumblebees.

Jordanna D H Sprayberry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Trajectory Statistics of Biological Exploratory Dynamics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The role of food odor in invertebrate foraging.Genes, brain, and behavior · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

1 author.

Jordanna D H SprayberryMuhlenberg College, 2400 W Chew St, Allentown, PA, 18104, USA. jordannasprayberry@muhlenberg.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6974-5735

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the phrase 'foraging bumblebee' brings to mind a bumbling bee flying flower to flower in a sunny meadow, foraging is a complicated series of behaviors such as: locating a floral patch; selecting a flower-type; learning handling skills for pollen and nectar extraction; determining when to move-on from a patch; learning within-patch paths (traplining); and learning efficient hive-to-patch routes (spatial navigation). Thus the term 'forager' encompasses multiple distinct behaviors that rely on different sensory modalities. Despite a robust literature on bumblebee foraging behavior, few studies are directly relevant to sensory-guided search; i.e. how workers locate novel patches. The first step in answering this question is to determine what sensory information is available to searching bumblebees. This manuscript presents a computational model that elucidates the relative frequency of visual and olfactory cues that are available to workers searching for floral resources under a range of ecologically relevant scenarios. Model results indicate that odor is the most common sensory cue encountered during search flights. When the likelihood of odor-plume contact is higher, odor-encounter is ubiquitous. While integrative (visual + olfactory) cues are common when foragers are searching for larger flowers (e.g. Echinacea), they become rare when foragers are searching for small flowers (e.g. Penstemon). Visual cues are only encountered in isolation when foragers are seeking large flowers with a low odor-plume contact probability. These results indicate that despite the multisensory nature of floral signals, different modalities may be encountered in isolation during search-behavior, as opposed to the reliably multimodal signals encountered during patch-exploitation or nectar/ pollen acquisition.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorOlfactory PerceptionOrientation, SpatialSmellVision, OcularVisual PerceptionAnimalsBeesComputer Simulation

Identifiers

PMID30275496
PMCPMC6167322

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.