Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34250559›Full record

ArticleOecologia2021

Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: a comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure.

Sarah K Richman, Felicity Muth, Anne S Leonard

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah K RichmanDepartment of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, USA. sarahkrichman@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1987-1140
Felicity MuthDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
Anne S LeonardDepartment of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, USA.
University of Nevada, Reno · USThe University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2018-67014-27543
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals develop food preferences based on taste, nutritional quality and to avoid environmental toxins. Yet, measuring preferences in an experimental setting can be challenging since ecologically realistic assays can be time consuming, while simplified assays may not capture natural sampling behavior. Field realism is a particular challenge when studying behavioral responses to environmental toxins in lab-based assays, given that toxins can themselves impact sampling behavior, masking our ability to detect preferences. We address these challenges by comparing different experimental methods for measuring sucrose concentration preference in bumble bees (Bombus impatiens), evaluating the utility of two preference chamber-based methods (ad libitum versus a novel restricted-sampling assay) in replicating bees' preferences when they fly freely between artificial flowers in a foraging arena. We find that the restricted-sampling method matched a free-flying scenario more closely than the ad libitum protocol, and we advocate for expanded use of this approach, given its ease of implementation. We then performed a second experiment using the new protocol to ask whether consuming the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, known to suppress feeding motivation, interfered with the expression of sucrose preferences. After consuming imidacloprid, bees were less likely to choose the higher-quality sucrose even as they gained experience with both options. Thus, we provide evidence that pesticides interfere with bees' ability to discriminate between floral rewards that differ in value. This work highlights a simple protocol for assessing realistic foraging preferences in bees and provides an efficient way for researchers to measure the impacts of anthropogenic factors on preference expression.

Indexed as

InsecticidesSucroseAnimalsBeesFeeding BehaviorLaboratoriesNeonicotinoidsInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsSucroseBehavioral assaysBombus impatiensImidaclopridNectarPreference

Identifiers

PMID34250559
OpenAlexW3181982195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.