Foraging Bumble Bees Weigh the Reliability of Personal and Social Information  Aimee S. Dunlap, Matthew E. Nielsen, Anna Dornhaus, Daniel R. Papaj  Current Biology  Volume 26, Issue 9, Pages 1195-1199 (May 2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.009 Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Diagram of the Colored-Disc Artificial Flowers and Dried Pinned Bumble Bees Used as Social Cues The final testing array consisted of three of each of these types, for a total of 12 flowers. See also Figure S1. Current Biology 2016 26, 1195-1199DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.009) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Responses to Bee Presence and Trained Flower Color for All Reliability Treatment Combinations Left: all levels of floral cue reliability when social cue reliability = 50%. Middle: all levels of floral cue reliability when social cue reliability = 83%. Right: all levels of floral cue reliability when social cue reliability = 100%. Each point shows the mean ± SD for the ten bees tested in each treatment. Single asterisks indicate significant (p < 0.05) deviations from what is expected by chance (50%); double asterisks indicate points remaining statistically significant following Bonferroni corrections. See also Table S1. Current Biology 2016 26, 1195-1199DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.009) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Visitation Rates during Training to Social and Floral Cues Based on the Reliability of Those Cues The main effects of social cue reliability and of floral clue reliability on overall performance during the training phase in terms of the proportion of rewarded landings (mean ± SE). For social reliability, each point is statistically significantly different from every other point (Fisher’s least significant difference [LSD], all p < 0.0019). For floral reliability, the mean number of rewarded landings per block when flowers are 100% reliable significantly differs from other levels (Fisher’s LSD, both p < 0.00008). See also Figure S2 and Table S2. Current Biology 2016 26, 1195-1199DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.009) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions