White flowers finish last: pollen-foraging bumble bees show biased learning in a floral color polymorphism
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Innate preference and learning of a particular trait, such as color, can vary depending on other aspects of the complex floral display such as scent, size, and shape.
“innate preference and learning of a particular trait, such as color, can vary depending on other aspects of the complex floral display such as scent, size, and shape”
From Variation in context‐dependent foraging behavior across pollinators (2017) · cites this paper as Russell et al., 2016
Strength and direction of preference for a certain flower color can depend on the presence or absence of scent signals.
“strength and direction of preference for a certain flower color can depend on the presence or absence of scent signals”
From Variation in context‐dependent foraging behavior across pollinators (2017) · cites this paper as Russell et al., 2016
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Variation in context‐dependent foraging behavior across pollinators
Briggs, H. M., Graham, S., Switzer, C. M., & Hopkins, R. (2017) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/210377 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“For example, strength and direction of preference for a certain flower color can depend on presence or absence of scent signals (Leonard and Masek 2014; Knauer and Schiestl 2014; Yoshida et al. 2015; Russell et al. 2016).”
Background
- Authors
- Russell, A. L., Newman, C. R., & Papaj, D. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Corresponding author
- Russell, Avery L.
- Venue
- Evolutionary Ecology
- Published
- 2016-08-11
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-191
- ISSN
- 0269-7653 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-8477
- OpenAlex
- W2517957124
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evolutionary Ecology (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- BearWorks (Missouri State University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (IOS-1257762)
- University of Arizona Honors College Undergraduate Research Grant
- Graduate and Professional Student Council (RSRCH-705FY’15)
- 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 › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- bumblebees, biased learning, pollinator preference, innate preference, pollen foraging, reproductive isolation, sensory bias
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
