The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Uncertainty and Pollinator‐Plant Interactions: The Foraging Behavior of Bees and Wasps on Artificial Flowers
Abstract
The influence of variability in nectar reward per flower on the foraging behavior of individual bumblebees (Bombus sandersoni Fkln.) and paper wasps (Vespula vulgaris L.) was explored during late summer 1979. The area around each colony was enclosed in mosquito netting, and an artificial floral patch, yellow and blue cardboard squares randomly mixed and fixed beneath wells in a clear sheet of plexiglass, was established within the enclosure. The nectar reward per flower (i.e., the volume) was manipulated to generate different degrees of variability within a floral type. The first set of experiments had equal quantities of nectar in all yellow and blue flowers. Individual foraging bees showed a significant preference for yellow. However, when blue flowers were kept constant (2 μL in each) and yellow made variable (6 μL in every third flower and none in the remainder), individual foragers avoided the variable yellow even though the expected reward from yellow was equal to blue. As a control, the variable floral type was reversed with yellow now constant. Individual foragers then showed an equally strong avoidance of blue flowers. In order to insure that bees were avoiding uncertainty rather than merely avoiding empty flowers, a new set of experiments was run with some nectar in every flower. The constant floral type contained 2 μL of nectar in every flower while the variable type contained 5 μL in every third and .5 μL in the remainder. Again the foragers preferred the constant floral type; however, the preference was not as great as when there were empty flowers. Analysis of the sequence of visits made by individual forages seems to indicate that bees learned to distinguish the variable floral type during the foraging bout. Similar experiments were run on the wasps. When flowers were of equal quality, the wasps preferred yellow to blue. When one floral type was variable and the other constant, the wasps preferred the constant type. For the same magnitude of variability, however, the bumblebee's avoidance of the variable floral type was more pronounced than was the wasps' response. The results of these experiments are then analyzed within the context of a more general model of foraging behavior in variable environments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Insects as Flower Visitors and Pollinators
Kevan, P. G., & Baker, H. G. (1983) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.en.28.010183.002203 · Cited by 912
Synergy between visual and olfactory cues in nectar feeding by naı̈ve hawkmoths, Manduca sexta
Raguso, R. A., & Willis, M. A. (2002) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.4010 · Cited by 384
Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture
Real, L. A. (1991) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1887231 · Cited by 377
Self-citationRISK AND FORAGING IN STOCHASTIC ENVIRONMENTS
Real, L., & Caraco, T. (1986) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.002103 · Cited by 373
Self-citationBee foraging in uncertain environments using predictive hebbian learning
Montague, P. R., Dayan, P., Person, C., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1995) · Nature · doi:10.1038/377725a0 · Cited by 311
Metadata
- Authors
- Real, L. A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1981-02
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20-26
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2101333288
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Uncertainty and Pollinator‐Plant Interactions: The Foraging Behavior of Bees and Wasps on Artificial Flowers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1936663
- The paper
- Real, L. A. (1981). Uncertainty and Pollinator‐Plant Interactions: The Foraging Behavior of Bees and Wasps on Artificial Flowers. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936663
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.