ArticleBehavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
Cognitive tasks could be biased towards generalists: a lesson from wild non-eusocial bees.
Article in Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cognitive tasks could be biased towards generalists: a lesson from wild non-eusocial bees.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological niches are closely intertwined with cognition in many animal lineages. For example, diet breadth is linked with performance on tasks measuring learning and exploration in several vertebrates, with generalists often exhibiting faster learning and more exploratory behavior than specialists. We compared associative learning performance and exploratory tendencies between dietary specialist and generalist bee (Anthophila) species using a closed-environment task with free-moving bees called the free-moving proboscis-extension response (FMPER). We found lower participation rates than expected, especially among specialist species, which hindered our ability to answer our primary question. Because participation rates of specialist species were so low, we combined our data with another published dataset that reported results from the same learning task but for several different bee species (again including specialists and generalists) to investigate the relation of diet breadth with associative learning and exploration across a broader species assemblage. Phylogeny-informed generalized linear mixed models indicate that neither specialists nor generalists increased accuracy throughout the task, although bees of both diet breadths became faster at drinking from the rewarding strip. Bees decreased their drinking latency-a measure of exploration-throughout the experiment, with no effect of diet breadth. However, specialists became less likely to participate over the course of the task compared to generalists. Our results suggest that specialist and generalist bees have experienced similar selection for associative learning abilities, and that specialists are hesitant to continue interacting with novel stimuli. Our study highlights the importance of developing cognitive tasks that measure abilities equally across the full range of life history traits.
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.