ArticlePloS one2019
Male and female bees show large differences in floral preference.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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 20 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Woodlands Facilitate Reproductive Behaviour and Niche Partitioning in Farmland Bumblebee Communities.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Pollen Deposition and Carrying Efficiency of Four Wild Pollinators for Oil-Seed Camellia Trees.Insects · 2026Article
- Article
- Seasonal variation in floral resource use by a hover fly (Melangyna) (Diptera: Syrphidae) and the western honey bee (Apis mellifera) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in an urban setting.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2025Article
- Innate floral object identification in a solitary pollinator employs a combination of both visual and olfactory cues.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2025Article
- Pollen specialist bee species are accurately predicted from visitation, occurrence and phylogenetic data.Oecologia · 2024Article
- Temporal origin of nestedness in interaction networks.PNAS nexus · 2023Article
- Phenology and foraging bias contribute to sex-specific foraging patterns in the rare declining butterflyEcology and evolution · 2023Article
- Pollinator sex matters in competition and coexistence of co-flowering plants.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Can sociality facilitate learning of complex tasks? Lessons from bees and flowers.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Many bee species, including rare species, are important for function of entire plant-pollinator networks.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Nested structure is dependent on visitor sex in the flower‒visitor networks in Kyoto, Japan.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Temporal and spatial variation in sex-specific abundance of the avian vampire fly (Philornis downsi).Parasitology research · 2022Article
- Diversity and composition of pollen loads carried by pollinators are primarily driven by insect traits, not floral community characteristics.Oecologia · 2021Article
- Article
- Stoichiometric niche, nutrient partitioning and resource allocation in a solitary bee are sex-specific and phosphorous is allocated mainly to the cocoon.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Sex-Dependent Effects of the Microbiome on Foraging and Locomotion inFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- The Scarcity of Specific Nutrients in Wild Bee Larval Food Negatively Influences Certain Life History Traits.Biology · 2020Article
- Article
- Male bumblebees sustain mate-seeking by adjusting foraging to environmental conditions.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraspecific variation in foraging niche can drive food web dynamics and ecosystem processes. In particular, male and female animals can exhibit different, often cascading, impacts on their interaction partners. Despite this, studies of plant-pollinator interaction networks have focused on the partitioning of the floral community between pollinator species, with little attention paid to intraspecific variation in plant preference between male and female bees. We designed a field study to evaluate the strength and prevalence of sexually dimorphic foraging, and particularly resource preferences, in bees. STUDY
designWe observed bees visiting flowers in semi-natural meadows in New Jersey, USA. To detect differences in flower use against a shared background of resource (flower) availability, we maximized the number of interactions observed within narrow spatio-temporal windows. To distinguish observed differences in bee use of flower species, which can reflect abundance patterns and sampling effects, from underlying differences in bee preferences, we analyzed our data with both a permutation-based null model and random effects models.
findingsWe found that the diets of male and female bees of the same species were often dissimilar as the diets of different species of bees. Furthermore, we demonstrate differences in preference between male and female bees. We show that intraspecific differences in preference can be robustly identified among hundreds of unique species-species interactions, without precisely quantifying resource availability, and despite high phenological turnover of both bees and plant bloom. Given the large differences in both flower use and preferences between male and female bees, ecological sex differences should be integrated into studies of bee demography, plant pollination, and coevolutionary relationships between flowers and insects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.