CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Plant and animal studiesInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorInsect-Plant Interactions and Control

Choosing rewarding flowers; perceptual limitations and innate preferences influence decision making in bumblebees and honeybees

Open access
Goulson, David, Cruise, Jemma L., Sparrow, Kate R., Harris, Adele J., Park, Kirsty J., Tinsley, Matthew C., Gilburn, Andre S.·2007·Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
DOI 10.1007/s00265-007-0384-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00265-007-0384-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bees, flies, and butterflies can alter their innate color preference by learning an association between nectar or pollen reward and a trait such as color.

    “Bees, flies, and butterflies can alter their innate color preference by learning an association between nectar or pollen reward and a trait such as color”

    From Variation in context‐dependent foraging behavior across pollinators (2017) · cites this paper as Goulson et al., 2007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goulson, D., Cruise, J. L., Sparrow, K. R., Harris, A. J., Park, K. J., Tinsley, M. C., & Gilburn, A. S.
Affiliations
University of Stirling (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007-04-04
Volume
61
Issue
10
Pages
1523-1529
ISSN
  • 0340-5443 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0762
DOI
10.1007/s00265-007-0384-4
OpenAlex
W2160145795
Cited by
64
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
Keywords
flower choice, foraging selectivity, nectar robbing, flower color preference, floral cues, visual acuity, foraging efficiency, Apis mellifera, bumblebees, carpenter bees, Tropaeolum majus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review