↓ Skip to main content

The architecture of the pollen hoarding syndrome in honey bees: implications for understanding social evolution, behavioral syndromes, and selective breeding

Overview of attention for article published in Apidologie, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
The architecture of the pollen hoarding syndrome in honey bees: implications for understanding social evolution, behavioral syndromes, and selective breeding
Published in
Apidologie, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s13592-013-0244-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olav Rueppell

Abstract

Social evolution has influenced every aspect of contemporary honey bee biology, but the details are difficult to reconstruct. The reproductive ground plan hypothesis of social evolution proposes that central regulators of the gonotropic cycle of solitary insects have been coopted to coordinate social complexity in honey bees, such as the division of labor among workers. The predicted trait associations between reproductive physiology and social behavior have been identified in the context of the pollen hoarding syndrome, a larger suite of interrelated traits. The genetic architecture of this syndrome is characterized by a partially overlapping genetic architecture with several consistent, pleiotropic QTL. Despite these central QTL and an integrated hormonal regulation, separate aspects of the pollen hoarding syndrome may evolve independently due to peripheral QTL and additionally segregating genetic variance. The characterization of the pollen hoarding syndrome has also demonstrated that this syndrome involves many non-behavioral traits, which may be the case for numerous "behavioral" syndromes. Furthermore, the genetic architecture of the pollen hoarding syndrome has implications for breeding programs for improving honey health and other desirable traits: If these traits are comparable to the pollen hoarding syndrome, consistent pleiotropic QTL will enable marker assisted selection, while sufficient additional genetic variation may permit the dissociation of trade-offs for efficient multiple trait selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 4%
Colombia 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 47 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,386,678
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Apidologie
#696
of 795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,992
of 210,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Apidologie
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 210,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.