Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31903216›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2019

Social inhibition maintains adaptivity and consensus of honeybees foraging in dynamic environments.

Subekshya Bidari, Orit Peleg, Zachary P Kilpatrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Subekshya BidariDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.
Orit PelegDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9481-7967
Zachary P KilpatrickDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2835-9416

Funding

CRCNS: Decision Making in Changing EnvironmentsR01MH115557 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GOLD, JOSHUA I, JOSIC, KRESIMIR · 2017 to 2020
$1.6M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH115557
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To effectively forage in natural environments, organisms must adapt to changes in the quality and yield of food sources across multiple timescales. Individuals foraging in groups act based on both their private observations and the opinions of their neighbours. How do these information sources interact in changing environments? We address this problem in the context of honeybee colonies whose inhibitory social interactions promote adaptivity and consensus needed for effective foraging. Individual and social interactions within a mathematical model of collective decisions shape the nutrition yield of a group foraging from feeders with temporally switching quality. Social interactions improve foraging from a single feeder if temporal switching is fast or feeder quality is low. When the colony chooses from multiple feeders, the most beneficial form of social interaction is direct switching, whereby bees flip the opinion of nest-mates foraging at lower-yielding feeders. Model linearization shows that effective social interactions increase the fraction of the colony at the correct feeder (consensus) and the rate at which bees reach that feeder (adaptivity). Our mathematical framework allows us to compare a suite of social inhibition mechanisms, suggesting experimental protocols for revealing effective colony foraging strategies in dynamic environments.

Indexed as

collective decision-makingdynamic environmentsforagingoptimalitysocial insects

Identifiers

PMID31903216
PMCPMC6936270

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.