Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39411085›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2024

Foraging bee species differentially prioritize quantity and quality of floral rewards.

Jaya Sravanthi Mokkapati, Michael Hill, Natalie K Boyle, Pierre Ouvrard, Adrien Sicard, Christina M Grozinger

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Jaya Sravanthi MokkapatiDepartment of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-6229
Michael HillDepartment of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Natalie K BoyleDepartment of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4065-4634
Pierre OuvrardDepartment of Plant Biology, Uppsala Biocenter, BOX 7080, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2805-4583
Adrien SicardDepartment of Plant Biology, Uppsala Biocenter, BOX 7080, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4104-6844
Christina M GrozingerDepartment of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5738-1201

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pollinator-plant interactions represent a core mutualism that underpins biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems, and the loss of flowering plants is a major driver of pollinator declines. Bee attraction to flowers is mediated by both quantity of resources (the number of available flowers for exploration) and quality of resources (pollen nutritional value), but whether and how bees prioritize these factors is not well understood. Here, we leveraged a unique plant system to investigate the floral factors influencing bee foraging decisions. Recombinant inbred plant lines were generated by crossing the self-fertilizing

Indexed as

bee foraging preferencesfloral traitsnutritional ecologyplant–pollinator interactionspollination ecology

Identifiers

PMID39411085
PMCPMC11477986

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.