The influence of nectar secretion rates on the responses of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) to previously visited flowers

By J C Stout, Dave Goulson. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2002

83 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract. Bumblebees can avoid recently depleted flowers by responding to repellent scent-marks deposited on flower corollas by previous visitors. It has previously been suggested that avoidance of visited flowers for a fixed period would be a poor strategy, since different plant species vary greatly in the rate at which they replenish floral rewards. In this study, we examined the duration of flower repellency after an initial bumblebee visit, using wild bumblebees (Bombus lapidarius, B. pascuorum and B. terrestris) foraging on four different plant species (Lotus corniculatus, Melilotus officinalis, Phacelia tanacetifolia and Symphytum officinale). We constructed a model to predict flower visitation following an initial visit, based on the nectar secretion pattern of the different plant species, the insect visitation rate per flower, and the search and handling times of bumblebees foraging on the plant species in question. The model predicts an optimal duration of flower avoidance which maximises the rate of reward acquisition for all bees. However, this optimum may be open to cheating. For two plant species, the evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) is a shorter duration of flower avoidance than the optimum. We found the duration of flower avoidance was markedly different among flower species and was inversely related to nectar secretion rates. The predicted ESSs for each plant species were close to those observed, suggesting that the key parameters influencing bumblebee behaviour are those included in the model. We discuss how bees may alter the duration of their response to repellent scents, and other factors that affect flower re-visitation.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/304459ed9c445145ab9dfc69fbcf67c42054d4c8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Dave Goulson
2. Lars Chittka
3. Ben Darvill
4. Mick E. Hanley
5. N. Saleh
6. A. Jacquemart
7. M. Franco
8. S. Pichon

In Insect Science

1. Lars Chittka
2. Dave Goulson
3. Ben Darvill
4. N. Saleh
5. A. Jacquemart
6. D. Michez
7. R. Moerman
8. B. Wathelet

In Plant Science

1. Dave Goulson
2. Ben Darvill
3. Mick E. Hanley
4. M. Franco
5. S. Pichon
6. Lars Chittka
7. N. Saleh
8. A. Jacquemart

Citations in the corpus

• Pollen and nectar quality drive the major and minor floral choices of bumble bees (2014, background): “Although bumble bees can visit various plant species for pollen, for nectar, or for both during one foraging trip, they can also focus only on one flowering species during a foraging bout (Gruter and Ratnieks 2011; Ishii 2005; Stout and Goulson 2002), ensuring the higher deposition of conspecific po”
• Distinguishing signals and cues: bumblebees use general footprints to generate adaptive behaviour at flowers and nest (2007, background): “1998), while others have suggested they are incidental cues, left everywhere bees walk (Stout and Goulson 2002; Eltz 2006).”
• The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals (2006, background): “They also seem to adjust their reliance on scent marks depending on the nectar secretion rate of the flower species (Stout and Goulson 2002).”
• Breeding system, pollinator choice and variation in pollen quality in British herbaceous plants (2008, background): “It has long been known that bumblebees rapidly respond to highly rewarding flowers (in terms of nectar sugar content) by developing learned associations between the reward and flower scent, colour or shape so that they preferentially search out rewarding flowers (Goulson 1999; Stout & Goulson 2002).”