ArticleScientific reports2021
Young honeybees show learned preferences after experiencing adulterated pollen.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Young honey bees Apis mellifera learn to avoid pollen contaminated with glyphosate or imidacloprid.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Perception, regulation, and effects on longevity of pollen fatty acids in the honey bee, Apis mellifera.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pollen selection affects honeybee colony development and productivity. Considering that pollen is consumed by young in-hive bees, and not by foragers, we hypothesized that young bees learn pollen cues and adjust their preferences to the most suitable pollens. To assess whether young bees show preferences based on learning for highly or poorly suitable pollens, we measured consumption preferences for two pure monofloral pollens after the bees had experienced one of them adulterated with a deterrent (amygdalin or quinine) or a phagostimulant (linoleic acid). Preferences were obtained from nurse-aged bees confined in cages and from nurse bees in open colonies. Furthermore, we tested the bees' orientation in a Y-maze using a neutral odour (Linalool or Nonanal) that had been previously associated with an amygdalin-adulterated pollen. Consumption preferences of bees, both in cages and in colonies, were reduced for pollens that had been adulterated with deterrents and increased for pollens that had been supplemented with linoleic acid. In the Y-maze, individuals consistently avoided the odours that they had previously experienced paired with the deterrent-adulterated pollen. Results show that nurse-aged bees associate pollen-based or pollen-related cues with either a distasteful/malaise experience or a tasty/nutritious event, leading to memories that bias their pollen-mediated response.
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.