Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31017928›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Male and female bees show large differences in floral preference.

Michael Roswell, Jonathan Dushoff, Rachael Winfree

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Can sociality facilitate learning of complex tasks? Lessons from bees and flowers.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Parasitology · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Male bumblebees sustain mate-seeking by adjusting foraging to environmental conditions.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael RoswellGraduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8479-9184
Jonathan DushoffDepartment of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0506-4794
Rachael WinfreeDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1271-2676

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

EcosystemFlowersPollinationSex CharacteristicsAnimalsBeesBehavior, AnimalFemaleMale

Identifiers

PMID31017928
PMCPMC6481915

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.