↓ Skip to main content

Hexagonal comb cells of honeybees are not produced via a liquid equilibrium process

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Hexagonal comb cells of honeybees are not produced via a liquid equilibrium process
Published in
The Science of Nature, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00114-012-0992-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Bauer, Kaspar Bienefeld

Abstract

The nests of European honeybees (Apis mellifera) are organised into wax combs that contain many cells with a hexagonal structure. Many previous studies on comb-building behaviour have been made in order to understand how bees produce this geometrical structure; however, it still remains a mystery. Direct construction of hexagons by bees was suggested previously, while a recent hypothesis postulated the self-organised construction of hexagonal comb cell arrays; however, infrared and thermographic video observations of comb building in the present study failed to support the self-organisation hypothesis because bees were shown to be engaged in direct construction. Bees used their antennae, mandibles and legs in a regular sequence to manipulate the wax, while some bees supported their work by actively warming the wax. During the construction of hexagonal cells, the wax temperature was between 33.6 and 37.6 °C. This is well below 40 °C, i.e. the temperature at which wax is assumed to exist in the liquid equilibrium that is essential for self-organised building.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 31%
Materials Science 3 12%
Physics and Astronomy 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,454,439
of 24,946,857 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#210
of 2,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,627
of 183,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,946,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 183,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.