↓ Skip to main content

Traplining in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens): a foraging strategy’s ontogeny and the importance of spatial reference memory in short-range foraging

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Traplining in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens): a foraging strategy’s ontogeny and the importance of spatial reference memory in short-range foraging
Published in
Oecologia, November 2006
DOI 10.1007/s00442-006-0607-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nehal Saleh, Lars Chittka

Abstract

To test the relative importance of long-term and working spatial memories in short-range foraging in bumblebees, we compared the performance of two groups of bees. One group foraged in a stable array of six flowers for 40 foraging bouts, thereby enabling it to establish a long-term memory of the array, and adjust its spatial movements accordingly. The other group was faced with an array that changed between (but not within) foraging bouts, and thus had only access to a working memory of the flowers that had been visited. Bees in the stable array started out sampling a variety of routes, but their tendency to visit flowers in a repeatable, stable order ("traplining") increased drastically with experience. These bees used shorter routes and converged on four popular paths. However, these routes were mainly formed through linking pairs of flowers by near-neighbour movements, rather than attempting to minimize overall travel distance. Individuals had variations to a primary sequence, where some bees used a major sequence most often, followed by a minor less used route, and others used two different routes with equal frequency. Even though bees foraging in the spatially randomized array had access to both spatial working memory and scent marks, this manipulation greatly disrupted foraging efficiency, mainly via an increase in revisitation to previously emptied flowers and substantially longer search times. Hence, a stable reference frame greatly improves foraging even for bees in relatively small arrays of flowers.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Brazil 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Colombia 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 154 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 25%
Researcher 32 18%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 14 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 130 74%
Environmental Science 19 11%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 17 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,454,066
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,674
of 4,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,508
of 155,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 155,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.