Nectar robbing, forager efficiency and seed set : Bumblebees foraging on the self incompatible plant Linaria vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae)

By J C Stout, J. Allen, Dave Goulson. 2000

86 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In southern England, Linaria vulgaris (common yellow toadflax) suffers from high rates of nectar robbery by bumblebees. In a wild population of L. vulgaris we found that 96 % of open flowers were robbed. Five species of bumblebee were observed foraging on these flowers, although short-tongued species (Bombus lapidarius, B. lucorum and B. terrestris) robbed nectar whilst longer-tongued ones behaved as legitimate pollinators (B. hortorum and B. pascuorum). Nectar rewards were highly variable; on average there was less nectar in robbed than in unrobbed flowers, but this difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of flowers containing no nectar was significantly higher for robbed flowers compared with unrobbed flowers. Secondary robbers and legitimate pollinators had similar handling times on flowers and, assuming they select flowers at random to forage on, received approximately the same nectar profit per minute, largely because most flowers had been robbed. There was no significant difference in the number of seeds in pods of robbed flowers and in pods of flowers that were artificially protected against robbing. However, more of the robbed flowers set at least some seed than the unrobbed flowers, possibly as a consequence of the experimental manipulation. We suggest that nectar robbing has little effect on plant fecundity because legitimate foragers are present in the population, and that seed predation and seed abortion after fertilization may be more important factors in limiting seed production in this species.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3a2d5eda34b5de873ace6b40f7d5a416bdb4e500

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. K. Goka
2. Dave Goulson
3. Orianne Rollin
4. P. Kevan
5. A. Dafni
6. C. Gross
7. N. Desneux
8. Giovanni Benelli

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Dave Goulson
2. S. Wratten
3. Stefano Benvenuti
4. Orianne Rollin
5. Ben Darvill

In Plant Science

1. K. Goka
2. Dave Goulson
3. P. Kevan
4. A. Dafni
5. C. Gross
6. S. Wratten
7. N. Desneux
8. Stefano Benvenuti

Citations in the corpus

• Bombus terrestris, pollinator, invasive and pest: An assessment of problems associated with its widespread introductions for commercial purposes (2010, background): “Moreover, it can take advantage of deep tubular flowers by piercing corollas to illegitimately obtain nectar that (Free, 1993; Stout et al., 2000; Matsumura et al., 2004; Dohzono et al., 2008).”
• Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems (2003, background): “However, nectar robbing may have little influence on plant fecundity if nectar robbers also collect pollen and in doing so effect pollination, or if other pollinators are present (Newton & Hill 1983, Arizmendi et al. 1995, Morris 1996, Stout et al. 2000).”
• Weed-insect pollinator networks as bio-indicators of ecological sustainability in agriculture. A review (2016, background): “Hummingbirds, ants, wasps, and bees, however, may be able to collect the reward, which is usually nectar, without touching the plant's reproductive organs (Rust 1979; Roubik 1982; Galen 1983; Scott et al. 1993; Stout et al. 2000).”