Correction to: ‘Pollen chemical and mechanical defences restrict host-plant use by bees’ (2024), by Rivest et al
Sébastien Rivest, Madhupreeta Muralidhar, Jessica R. K. Forrest
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsInsect and Pesticide Research · Plant and animal studies · Bee Products Chemical Analysis
Proc. R. Soc. B 291, 20232298 (Published online 27 February 2024). (https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.2298)
While preparing voucher specimens, we became aware that a specimen previously identified as Osmia tersula was in fact O. pikei. It is possible that other individuals labelled as O. tersula in this study were also misidentified; however, this cannot be verified, as the others did not survive to adulthood. Osmia tersula and O. pikei are closely related species belonging to the same subgenus (Melanosmia); both have a generalist pollen diet (for O. pikei, see Cripps and Rust [1,2]). Furthermore, as reported in the original article, our results are robust to the exclusion of O. tersula’. Therefore, the conclusions of our study are not affected by the identification error.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Cripps C, Rust RW. 1985 Biology and subgeneric placement of Osmia pikei (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Entomol. News 96, 109-113.
- 2Cripps C, Rust RW. 1989 Pollen preferences of seven Osmia species (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Environ. Entomol. 18, 133-138. (10.1093/ee/18.1.133) · doi ↗