Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39082242›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024

Extensive loss of forage diversity in social bees owing to flower constancy in simulated environments.

Christoph Grüter, Francisca H I D Segers, Lucy Hayes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. 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. Bees feeling the burn.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  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.

Christoph GrüterSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue , Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5553-5465
Francisca H I D SegersSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue , Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK.
Lucy HayesSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue , Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many bees visit just one flower species during a foraging trip, i.e. they show flower constancy. Flower constancy is important for plant reproduction but it could lead to an unbalanced diet, especially in biodiversity-depleted landscapes. It is assumed that flower constancy does not reduce dietary diversity in social bees, such as honeybees or bumblebees, but this has not yet been tested. We used computer simulations to investigate the effects of flower constancy on colony diet in plant species-rich and species-poor landscapes. We also explored if communication about food sources, which is used by many social bees, further reduces forage diversity. Our simulations reveal an extensive loss of forage diversity owing to flower constancy in both species-rich and species-poor environments. Small flower-constant colonies often discovered only 30-50% of all available plant species, thereby increasing the risk of nutritional deficiencies. Communication often interacted with flower constancy to reduce forage diversity further. Finally, we found that food source clustering, but not habitat fragmentation impaired dietary diversity. These findings highlight the nutritional challenges flower-constant bees face in different landscapes and they can aid in the design of measures to increase forage diversity and improve bee nutrition in human-modified landscapes.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorFlowersAnimalsBeesBiodiversityComputer SimulationDietEcosystemModels, Biologicalagent-based modelsbeescommunicationdietflower constancynutrition

Identifiers

PMID39082242
PMCPMC11289734

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.