Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38593853›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2024

Bumblebee nest departures under low light conditions at sunrise and sunset.

Katherine E Chapman, Michael T Smith, Kevin J Gaston, Natalie Hempel de Ibarra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2024. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

4 authors.

Katherine E ChapmanCentre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6584-6248
Michael T SmithDepartment of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Kevin J GastonEnvironment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7235-7928
Natalie Hempel de IbarraCentre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0859-8217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Only a few diurnal animals, such as bumblebees, extend their activity into the time around sunrise and sunset when illumination levels are low. Low light impairs viewing conditions and increases sensory costs, but whether diurnal insects use low light as a cue to make behavioural decisions is uncertain. To investigate how they decide to initiate foraging at these times of day, we observed bumblebee nest-departure behaviours inside a flight net, under naturally changing light conditions. In brighter light bees did not attempt to return to the nest and departed with minimal delay, as expected. In low light the probability of non-departures increased, as a small number of bees attempted to return after spending time on the departure platform. Additionally, in lower illumination bees spent more time on the platform before flying away, up to 68 s. Our results suggest that bees may assess light conditions once outside the colony to inform the decision to depart. These findings give novel insights into how behavioural decisions are made at the start and the end of a foraging day in diurnal animals when the limits of their vision impose additional costs on foraging efficiency.

Indexed as

BeesBehavior, AnimalLightAnimalsbehaviourdecision-makingdiurnalforaginginsectsvision

Identifiers

PMID38593853
PMCPMC11003773

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.