Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36043303›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2022

Dance-communicated distances support nectar foraging as a supply-driven system.

Bradley D Ohlinger, Roger Schürch, Mary R Silliman, Taylor N Steele, Margaret J Couvillon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Bradley D OhlingerDepartment of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3022-6564
Roger SchürchDepartment of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9075-8912
Mary R SillimanDepartment of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Taylor N SteeleDepartment of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Margaret J CouvillonDepartment of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0458-298X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much like human consumers, honeybees adjust their behaviours based on resources' supply and demand. For both, interactions occur in fluctuating conditions. Honeybees weigh the cost of flight against the benefit of nectar and pollen, which are nutritionally distinct resources that serve different purposes: bees collect nectar continuously to build large honey stores for overwintering, but they collect pollen intermittently to build modest stores for brood production periods. Therefore, nectar foraging can be considered a supply-driven process, whereas pollen foraging is demand-driven. Here we compared the foraging distances, communicated by waggle dances and serving as a proxy for cost, for nectar and pollen in three ecologically distinct landscapes in Virginia. We found that honeybees foraged for nectar at distances 14% further than for pollen across all three sites (

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorPlant NectarAnimalsBeesHumansPollenVirginiaPlant Nectardemand-drivenhoneybee foragingsupply-drivenwaggle dance

Identifiers

PMID36043303
PMCPMC9428537

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.