Floral Temperature and Optimal Foraging: Is Heat a Feasible Floral Reward for Pollinators?

As well as nutritional rewards, some plants also reward ectothermic pollinators with warmth. Bumble bees have some control over their temperature, but have been shown to forage at warmer flowers when given a choice, suggesting that there is some advantage to them of foraging at warm flowers (such as reducing the energy required to raise their body to flight temperature before leaving the flower). We describe a model that considers how a heat reward affects the foraging behaviour in a thermogenic central-place forager (such as a bumble bee). We show that although the pollinator should spend a longer time on individual flowers if they are warm, the increase in total visit time is likely to be small. The pollinator's net rate of energy gain will be increased by landing on warmer flowers. Therefore, if a plant provides a heat reward, it could reduce the amount of nectar it produces, whilst still providing its pollinator with the same net rate of gain. We suggest how heat rewards may link with plant life history strategies.     

Morning floral heat as a reward to the pollinators of the Oncocyclus irises

Relationships between flowering plants and their pollinators are usually affected by the amount of reward, mainly pollen or nectar, offered to pollinators by flowers, with these amounts usually positively correlated with floral display. The large Oncocyclus iris flowers, despite being the largest flowers in the East Mediterranean flora, are nectarless and have hidden pollen. No pollinators visit the flowers during daytime, and these flowers are pollinated only by night-sheltering solitary male bees. These iris flowers are partially or fully dark-colored, suggesting that they gather heat by absorbing solar radiation. Here we test the hypothesis that the dark-colored flowers of the Oncocyclus irises offer heat reward to their male solitary bee pollinators. Floral temperature was higher by 2.5°C than ambient air after sunrise. Solitary male bees emerged earlier after sheltering in Oncocyclus flowers than from other experimental shelter types. Pollination tunnels facing east towards the rising sun hosted more male bees than other aspects. We suggest that floral heat reward can explain the evolution of dark floral colors in Oncocyclus irises, mediated by the pollinators’ behavior.     

Reproductive biology of Echinopsis terscheckii (Cactaceae): the role of nocturnal and diurnal pollinators

The aim of this study was to analyse the reproductive biology of Echinopsis terscheckii, a species endemic to northwest Argentina that has nocturnal flowers. We expected that this species had a generalised pollination system, with moths and diurnal visitors as the primary pollinators. To test this, we studied the floral biology, breeding system and floral visitors of this species and the effectiveness of nocturnal and diurnal visitors. Floral biology was defined based on floral morphology, floral cycle and nectar production of the flowers. The breeding system and relative contributions of diurnal and nocturnal visitors to fruit and seed set were analysed through field experiments. E.?terscheckii flowers opened at sunset and closed the following day. The peak of nectar production occurred at midnight. Flowers were determined to be self-incompatible. Moths, bees and birds were identified as floral visitors. Moths were the most frequent visitors at night, whereas bees were the most frequent visitors during the day. Fruit production by diurnal pollinators was less than that by nocturnal pollinators; among all floral visitors, moths were the most effective pollinators. We have demonstrated for the first time that moths are the primary pollinators of columnar cacti of the genus Echinopsis. Our results suggest that moths might be important pollinators of columnar cactus species with nocturnal flowers in the extra-tropical deserts of South America.     

Bees get a head start on honey production

Nectar concentration is assumed to remain constant during transport by honeybees between flowers and hive. We sampled crop contents of nectar foragers on Aloe greatheadii var. davyana, a major winter bee plant in South Africa. The nectar is dilute (approx. 20% w/w), but the crop contents of bees captured on flowers are significantly more concentrated. In returning foragers, the concentration increases further to 38–40%, accompanied by a volume decrease. The doubling of sugar concentration suggests that nectar is regurgitated onto the tongue and evaporated during foraging and on the return flight. Processing of the dilute nectar into honey thus begins early, aided by low ambient humidities. This has implications for honeybee thermoregulation, water balance and energetics during foraging, and for the communication of nectar quality to recruits.     

Pollination of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Machaerium opacum</Emphasis> (Fabaceae) by nocturnal and diurnal bees

With plants whose flowers open at night and stay open during the day, nocturnal pollinators may exploit floral resources before diurnal competitors. Moths, bats, and beetles are the most familiar nocturnal pollinators, whereas nocturnal bees as pollinators remain poorly understood. The common Cerrado tree Machaerium opacum (Fabaceae) has white and strongly scented melittophilous flowers, which first open at the night and remain open during the day and, thus, have the potential to be visited by both nocturnal and diurnal bees. We asked: (1) what is the plant’s breeding system? (2) when during the night do the flowers open? (3) what are the visual and olfactory floral cues? and (4) which nocturnal/diurnal bees visit and pollinate the flowers? We show that M. opacum is self-incompatible. Its flowers open synchronously at 03:30 h, produce nectar exclusively at night, and have an explosive mechanism of pollen presentation. The flowers have pure white petals, release strong scents during anthesis, and are pollinated by nocturnal and diurnal bees. We recorded four nocturnal and 17 diurnal species as flower visitors, with females of nocturnal species of Ptiloglossa (Colletidae) being the most abundant. After an initial pollen-releasing visit, only a minor amount of pollen remains in a flower. Several floral traits favor visits by nocturnal bees: (1) night-time flower opening, (2) nectar production at night, (3) almost complete pollen release during the first flower visit, and (4) pure white petals and strong odor production prior to sunrise, facilitating visual and olfactory detection of flowers when light is dim.     

Floral bagging differentially affects handling behaviours and single-visit pollen deposition by honey bees and native bees

1. Measurements of pollinator performance are crucial to pollination studies, enabling researchers to quantify the relative value of different pollinator species to plant reproduction. One of the most widely employed measures of pollinator performance is single-visit pollen deposition, the number of conspecific pollen grains deposited to a stigma after one pollinator visit. To ensure a pollen-free stigma, experimenters must first bag flowers before exposing them to a pollinator. 2. Bagging flowers, however, may unintentionally manipulate floral characteristics to which pollinators respond. In this study, we quantified the effect of bagging on nectar volume in watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) flowers, and how this affects pollinator performance and behaviour. 3. Experimental bagging resulted in roughly 30-fold increases in nectar volume relative to unmanipulated, open-pollinated field flowers after only a few hours. Honey bees, but not native bees, consistently displayed elevated handling times and single-visit pollen deposition on unmanipulated bagged flowers relative to those from which we removed nectar to mimic volumes in open-pollinated flowers. 4. Furthermore, we identify specific bee foraging behaviours during a floral visit that account for differences in pollen deposition, and how these differ between honey bees and native bees. 5. Our findings suggest that experimental bagging of flowers, without accounting for artificially accumulated nectar, can lead to biased estimates of pollinator performance in pollinator taxa that respond strongly to nectar volume. We advise that pollination studies be attentive to nectar secretion dynamics in their focal plant species to ensure unbiased estimates of pollinator performance across multiple pollinator species.     

Pollen in Bee-Flower Relations Some Considerations on Melittophily*

Pollen and nectar are usually lumped together as floral rewards for pollinating bees, but they play totally different roles for flowers and bees (Table 1), as well as in the relationship between them. While flowers are specialized for certain pollinators via nectar, bees specialize on certain flowers via pollen. While flowers need pollen as a prerequisite for pollination, it is the essential larval food in bees. Thus, there is a strong competition between them for pollen. Foraging for pollen must be divided into three phases: uptake in the flower, reloading into and homeward transport within a carrying container. Bees have specializations for transport but hardly any for pollen uptake - and thus for pollination. Bees actively harvesting pollen usually do not pollinate. This only happens as a consequence of contamination of the bee by pollen. From these data a scenario is provided for the evolution of bees and bee flowers. Specialized bee flowers are often characterized by their ability to hide pollen from the bees and at the same time use them as optimal pollinators. If the relationship of bees and flowers is mutualistic at all it is best described as a balanced mutual exploitation.     

Pollination in Jacaranda rugosa (Bignoniaceae): euglossine pollinators, nectar robbers and low fruit set

Nectar robbers access floral nectar in illegitimate flower visits without, in general, performing a pollination service. Nevertheless, their effect on fruit set can be indirectly positive if the nectar removal causes an incremental increase in the frequency of legitimate flower visits of effective pollinators, especially in obligate outcrossers. We studied pollination and the effect of nectar robbers on the reproductive fitness of Jacaranda rugosa , an endemic shrub of the National Park of Catimbau, in the Caatinga of Pernambuco, Brazil. Xenogamous J . rugosa flowers continuously produced nectar during the day at a rate of 1 μl·h⁻¹. Female and male Euglossa melanotricha were the main pollinators. Early morning flower visits substantially contributed to fruit set because stigmas with open lobes were almost absent in the afternoon. Ninety-nine per cent of the flowers showed damage caused by nectar robbers. Artificial addition of sugar water prolonged the duration of flower visits of legitimate flower visitors. Removal of nectar, simulating the impact of nectar robbers, resulted in shorter flower visits of euglossine bees. While flower visits of nectar-robbing carpenter bees ( Xylocopa frontalis , X . grisescens, X . ordinaria) produced only a longitudinal slit in the corolla tube in the region of the nectar chamber, worker bees of Trigona spinipes damaged the gynoecium in 92% of the flowers. This explains the outstandingly low fruit set (1.5%) of J. rugosa in the National Park of Catimbau.     

Increased sugar concentration in response to a wide range of pollinator sounds can be adaptive for the plant: answer to Raguso et al

In Veits et al., we showed that flowers respond to a range of pollinator sounds by increased nectar sugar concentration. Here we clarify that (1) our argument is relevant to most pollinators, and not limited to bees (2) specifically, bees do access Oenothera Drumondii nectar in this area.     

Intra‐floral resource partitioning between endemic and invasive flower visitors: consequences for pollinator effectiveness

1. Sympatric flower visitor species often partition nectar and pollen and thus affect each other's foraging pattern. Consequently, their pollination service may also be influenced by the presence of other flower visiting species. Ants are solely interested in nectar and frequent flower visitors of some plant species but usually provide no pollination service. Obligate flower visitors such as bees depend on both nectar and pollen and are often more effective pollinators. 2. In Hawaii, we studied the complex interactions between flowers of the endemic tree Metrosideros polymorpha (Myrtaceae) and both, endemic and introduced flower‐visiting insects. The former main‐pollinators of M. polymorpha were birds, which, however, became rare. We evaluated the pollinator effectiveness of endemic and invasive bees and whether it is affected by the type of resource collected and the presence of ants on flowers. 3. Ants were dominant nectar‐consumers that mostly depleted the nectar of visited inflorescences. Accordingly, the visitation frequency, duration, and consequently the pollinator effectiveness of nectar‐foraging honeybees (Apis mellifera) strongly decreased on ant‐visited flowers, whereas pollen‐collecting bees remained largely unaffected by ants. Overall, endemic bees (Hylaeus spp.) were ineffective pollinators. 4. The average net effect of ants on pollination of M. polymorpha was neutral, corresponding to a similar fruit set of ant‐visited and ant‐free inflorescences. 5. Our results suggest that invasive social hymenopterans that often have negative impacts on the Hawaiian flora and fauna may occasionally provide neutral (ants) or even beneficial net effects (honeybees), especially in the absence of native birds.     

Pollinator genetics and pollination: do honey bee colonies selected for pollen‐hoarding field better pollinators of cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon?

1. Genetic polymorphisms of flowering plants can influence pollinator foraging but it is not known whether heritable foraging polymorphisms of pollinators influence their pollination efficacies. Honey bees Apis mellifera L. visit cranberry flowers for nectar but rarely for pollen when alternative preferred flowers grow nearby. 2. Cranberry flowers visited once by pollen‐foraging honey bees received four‐fold more stigmatic pollen than flowers visited by mere nectar‐foragers (excluding nectar thieves). Manual greenhouse pollinations with fixed numbers of pollen tetrads (0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32) achieved maximal fruit set with just eight pollen tetrads. Pollen‐foraging honey bees yielded a calculated 63% more berries than equal numbers of non‐thieving nectar‐foragers, even though both classes of forager made stigmatic contact. 3. Colonies headed by queens of a pollen‐hoarding genotype fielded significantly more pollen‐foraging trips than standard commercial genotypes, as did hives fitted with permanently engaged pollen traps or colonies containing more larvae. Pollen‐hoarding colonies together brought back twice as many cranberry pollen loads as control colonies, which was marginally significant despite marked daily variation in the proportion of collected pollen that was cranberry. 4. Caloric supplementation of matched, paired colonies failed to enhance pollen foraging despite the meagre nectar yields of individual cranberry flowers. 5. Heritable behavioural polymorphisms of the honey bee, such as pollen‐hoarding, can enhance fruit and seed set by a floral host (e.g. cranberry), but only if more preferred pollen hosts are absent or rare. Otherwise, honey bees' broad polylecty, flight range, and daily idiosyncrasies in floral fidelity will obscure specific pollen‐foraging differences at a given floral host, even among paired colonies in a seemingly uniform agricultural setting.     

盗蜜对角蒿传粉者行为和生殖成功的影响

一些研究显示盗蜜对自交植物的结实和结籽没有显著影响。然而, 对于既有传粉者为其传粉实现异交又能通过自交实现生殖保障的兼性自交植物来说, 盗蜜对其生殖的影响还知之甚少。由于兼性自交植物可以自交, 盗蜜对其总体结实可能不会有显著影响, 但可能会通过影响传粉者行为而影响传粉者介导的结实。为了验证这一假说, 本研究以兼性自交的一年生角蒿(Invarvillea sinensis var. sinensis)为研究材料, 通过野外调查和控制实验, 探讨了盗蜜对传粉者介导的结实(传粉者行为)和总体结实率的影响。结果表明: 角蒿的盗蜜者和主要传粉者相同, 均为密林熊蜂(Bombus patagiatus)。熊蜂盗蜜频率平均为20.24% (范围为0-51.43%)。盗蜜对角蒿总体结实率、每果结籽数和每果种子重量没有显著影响。然而, 被盗蜜花的柱头闭合比率显著高于未被盗蜜花, 说明盗蜜影响传粉者的访花行为和传粉者介导的结实率。另外, 被盗蜜花的高度显著高于未被盗蜜花, 说明盗蜜者倾向于从较大较高的花上盗蜜。这些结果为全面认识盗蜜对植物生殖的影响提供了新的信息。     

The function of ant repellence by flowers: testing the “nectar protection” and “pollinator protection” hypotheses

According to the “nectar protection” and “pollinator protection” hypotheses, ant repellents in flowers have evolved to prevent ants from exploiting floral nectar and chasing away pollinators, respectively. We used weaver ants, Oecophylla smaragdina, to determine the strength of ant repellence in 32 bee-pollinated plant species and used the comparative method to test whether nectar production, size of pollinating bees and plant growth form were related to floral repellence. Flowers were more likely to repel ants if they offered nectar as a reward and were pollinated by small bees than if they were nectarless and pollinated by large bees. Furthermore, tree flowers were more likely than shrub or vine flowers to repel ants. Our results validate the pollinator protection hypothesis and the nectar protection hypothesis. Depending on the ecological context, therefore, ant repellents can function as direct or indirect exploitation barriers: they can prevent ants from removing nectar without effecting pollination (direct barriers) and, when flowers are pollinated by large bees, the absence of ant repellents—or even the presence of ant attractants—can result in ants chasing small ineffective pollinators away (indirect barriers).     

Primary nectar robbing by Apis mellifera (Apidae) on Pyrostegia venusta (Bignoniaceae): behavior,pillaging rate,and its consequences

The interactions between plants and their pollinators are the result of convergent evolution of floral attributes reflecting pressure exerted by pollinators. Nonetheless, the strategies employed by floral visitors to collect floral resources are extremely complex, and commonly involve theft or robbery in addition to pollination. We describe here the behavioral repertory of Apis mellifera during the collection of the floral resources, and evaluated the robbing rates of A. mellifera on the buds and flowers of Pyrostegia venusta during periods of intense and sparse flowering. We recorded the behaviors exhibited by foraging bees while collecting floral resources, quantified the numbers of floral buds and flowers with perforations in their corolla tissues, and determined whether that damage reduced nectar production. The evaluations were conducted during two distinct periods: during the period of intense flowering of P. venusta, and during the period of sparse flowering. Nectar robbing was observed during 93.4% of the visits of foraging A. mellifera bees, while nectar theft was observed during only 0.7% of the visits, and pollen theft during 5.9%. The robbing of floral buds and flowers was most intense during the period of heavy flowering. Flowers that had been intensely robbed secreted significantly less nectar than those non-robbed. The unusual nectar robbing activities of A. mellifera, especially during the period of intense flowering indicates an optimization of access to larger volumes of food resources. Our results therefore point to a major limitation of nectar per floral unit during the intense flowering period of P. venusta due to the high activity of nectar robbing by A. mellifera bees.

     

Nectar utilization and pollination by Australian honeyeaters and insects visiting Calothamnus quadrifidus (Myrtaceae)

Nectar availability in Calothamnus quadrifidus flowers was studied at Wongamine Nature Reserve in late spring (November). Despite some overnight depletion by moths and other invertebrates, more nectar was present in flowers at dawn than at the preceding dusk. Significant nectar depletion occurred within a few hours after dawn, mainly due to foraging by two honeyeater species. Lichmera indistincta and Phylidonyris nigra. Thereafter, nectar availability was maintained at relatively low levels, principally because of foraging by honeyeaters and honey bees. Apis mellifera, that became active during the warmer part of the day. Although individual honeyeaters consumed more nectar than A. mellifera, honey bees were so abundant that their total impact was greater than that of either honeyeater species for much of the day. Transfer of C. quadrifidus pollen between flowers is necessary in order to achieve a high level of seed set, as the flowers appear to be protandrous. Honeyeaters appeared to be considerably more significant pollen vectors than A. mellifera.     

Nectar robbery by bees Xylocopa virginica and Apis mellifera contributes to the pollination of rabbiteye blueberry

Honey bees, Apis mellifera L., probe for nectar from robbery slits previously made by male carpenter bees, Xylocopa virginica (L.), at the flowers of rabbiteye blueberry, Vaccinium ashei Reade. This relationship between primary nectar robbers (carpenter bees) and secondary nectar thieves (honey bees) is poorly understood but seemingly unfavorable for V. ashei pollination. We designed two studies to measure the impact of nectar robbers on V. ashei pollination. First, counting the amount of pollen on stigmas (stigmatic pollen loading) showed that nectar robbers delivered fewer blueberry tetrads per stigma after single floral visits than did our benchmark pollinator, the southeastern blueberry bee, Habropoda laboriosa (F.), a recognized effective pollinator of blueberries. Increasing numbers of floral visits by carpenter bee and honey bee robbers yielded larger stigmatic loads. As few as three robbery visits were equivalent to one legitimate visit by a pollen-collecting H. laboriosa female. More than three robbery visits per flower slightly depressed stigmatic pollen loads. In our second study, a survey of 10 commercial blueberry farms demonstrated that corolla slitting by carpenter bees (i.e., robbery) has no appreciable affect on overall V. ashei fruit set. Our observations demonstrate male carpenter bees are benign or even potentially beneficial floral visitors of V ashei. Their robbery of blueberry flowers in the southeast may attract more honey bee pollinators to the crop.     

Pollination ecology of the Cerrado species Eschweilera nana (Lecythidaceae subfam. Lecythidoideae)

Eschweilera nana is pollinated by a guild of pollinators consisting of mostly bees. Effective pollinators are large bees able to force their way into the closed androecium to access nectar. The morphology of the flowers diminishes self pollination and promotes cross-pollination. Although many pollinators make diurnal visits to the flowers, fruit set was very low in comparison with the number of flowers produced. Breeding system tests yielded only two fruits, one produced by xenogamy and another one in the control test. The results of this study are consistent with studies of other Cerrado plants pollinated by guilds of insects and support the conclusion of other pollination studies of Lecythidaceae that fruit set is low in comparison with the high numbers of flowers produced.     

Departure rules used by bees foraging for nectar: A field test

Summary Departure rules used by solitary long-tongued bees (Anthophora spp. andEucera spp.) collecting nectar from flowers ofAnchusa strigosa (Boraginaceae) were studied. The amount of nectar a bee receives from an individual flower was estimated by measuring the time elapsed since the previous bee visit to that flower. Measurements of nectar accumulation in experimentally emptied flowers indicated that this time interval is an accurate predictor of nectar volumes in flowers. We found that nectar rewards influence the probability of departure from individual plants, as well as distances of movements within plants. The probability of departure from individual plants was negatively related to the amount of reward received at the two lastvisited flowers. This result indicates that the bees used a probabllistic departure rule, rather than a simple threshold departure rule, and that rewards from both the current and the previously visited flower were important in determining departure points. Distances of inter-flower movements within plants were negatively related to the amount of reward received at the current flower. The overall results suggest that the pollinators ofA. strigosa make two types of departure decisions-departures from the whole plant and departures from the neighbourhood of individual flowers-and that they use different departure rules for each scale. Factors influencing the decision-making processes of the observed foraging behaviour are discussed.     

Floral Biology and Pollination Mechanisms in Two Viola Species—From Nectar to Pollen Flowers?

The genus Viola is represented by four related species in Brazil belonging to section Leptidium, one of the most primitive sections in the genus. Floral biology and pollination by bees were studied in Viola cerasifolia and V. subdimidiata in high-altitude areas in south-eastern Brazil. Flowers are zygomorphic and spurred. The five stamens are arranged in a cuff around the ovary, and pollen is released by means of apical connective projections, which form a cone surrounding the base of the style. The connective projections of the inferior stamens are elongated and curved to form a hook-shaped structure. Nectar-secreting tissue can occur in the basal connective appendages of the inferior stamens, which project into the spur. Flowers of V. subdimidiata secreted a mean volume of 0.14 micro l nectar over a 24-h period; approx. 40 % of flowers did not secrete any nectar. The main pollinators of these Viola species are female bees belonging to the genus Anthrenoides (Andrenidae), which search mainly for pollen. These bees seem to be oligolectic and obtain large amounts of pollen from Viola by vibrating the flowers or by moving the hook repeatedly back and forth. Males of Anthrenoides patrol Viola clusters and also feed on nectar, acting as secondary pollinators. The basic floral structure in the genus Viola fits that of 'nectar flowers'. The uncommon hook-shaped projections, scanty nectar production, and behaviour of pollinators suggest that V. cerasifolia and V. subdimidiata are shifting their reward for pollinators from nectar to pollen. Based on floral morphology, this shift may be widespread in Viola sect. Leptidium.     

Consumption of a nectar alkaloid reduces pathogen load in bumble bees

Diet has a significant effect on pathogen infections in animals and the consumption of secondary metabolites can either enhance or mitigate infection intensity. Secondary metabolites, which are commonly associated with herbivore defense, are also frequently found in floral nectar. One hypothesized function of this so-called toxic nectar is that it has antimicrobial properties, which may benefit insect pollinators by reducing the intensity of pathogen infections. We tested whether gelsemine, a nectar alkaloid of the bee-pollinated plant Gelsemium sempervirens, could reduce pathogen loads in bumble bees infected with the gut protozoan Crithidia bombi. In our first laboratory experiment, artificially infected bees consumed a daily diet of gelsemine post-infection to simulate continuous ingestion of alkaloid-rich nectar. In the second experiment, bees were inoculated with C. bombi cells that were pre-exposed to gelsemine, simulating the direct effects of nectar alkaloids on pathogen cells that are transmitted at flowers. Gelsemine significantly reduced the fecal intensity of C. bombi 7 days after infection when it was consumed continuously by infected bees, whereas direct exposure of the pathogen to gelsemine showed a non-significant trend toward reduced infection. Lighter pathogen loads may relieve bees from the behavioral impairments associated with the infection, thereby improving their foraging efficiency. If the collection of nectar secondary metabolites by pollinators is done as a means of self-medication, pollinators may selectively maintain secondary metabolites in the nectar of plants in natural populations.