Improving species distribution models using biotic interactions: a case study of parasites,pollinators and plants

Biotic interactions have been considered as an important factor to be included in species distribution modelling, but little is known about how different types of interaction or different strategies for modelling affect model performance. This study compares different methods for including interspecific interactions in distribution models for bees, their brood parasites, and the plants they pollinate. Host–parasite interactions among bumble bees (genus Bombus: generalist pollinators and brood parasites) and specialist plant–pollinator interactions between Centris bees and Krameria flowers were used as case studies. We used 7 different modelling algorithms available in the BIOMOD R package. For Bombus, the inclusion of interacting species distributions generally increased model predictive accuracy. The improvement was better when the interacting species was included with its raw distribution rather than with its modeled suitability. However, incorporating the distributions of non‐interacting species sometimes resulted in similarly increased model accuracy despite their being no significance of any interaction for the distribution. For the Centris‐Krameria system the best strategy for modelling biotic interactions was to include the interacting species model‐predicted values. However, the results were less consistent than those for Bombus species, and most models including biotic interactions showed no significant improvement over abiotic models. Our results are consistent with previous studies showing that biotic interactions can be important in structuring species distributions at regional scales. However, correlations between species distributions are not necessarily indicative of interactions. Therefore, choosing the correct biotic information, based on biological and ecological knowledge, is critical to improve the accuracy of species distribution models and forecast distribution change.     

Mite‐y bees: bumble bees (Bombus spp., Hymenoptera: Apidae) host a relatively homogeneous mite (Acari) community,shaped by bee species identity but not by geographic proximity

1. Parasites can affect the communities of their hosts; and hosts, in turn, shape communities of parasites and other symbionts. This makes host–symbiont relationships a key but often overlooked aspect of community ecology. 2. Mites associated with bees have a range of lifestyles; however, little is known about mites associated with wild bees or about factors influencing the make‐up of bee‐associated mite communities. This study investigated how mite communities associated with bumble bees (Bombus spp.) are shaped by the Bombus community and geographic proximity. 3. Bees were collected from 15 sites in Ontario, Canada, and examined for mites. Mite abundance and species richness increased with local bee abundance. Several bee species also differed in mite abundance, species richness, prevalence, and diversity. Locally uncommon species tended to have more mites than other bees. Queen bees had the most mites, and males had more mites than workers. 4. Spatial proximity was not a predictor of mite community composition, despite a strong effect of proximity on bee community similarity. 5. On the 11 Bombus spp. examined, 33 mite species were found. Whereas nearly half of these mite species are obligate associates of bumble bees, none was restricted to particular Bombus species. 6. The best predictor of mite community composition was bee identity. Although many parasite communities show strong geographic patterns, the communities of primarily commensalistic bee‐mites in this study did not. These findings have implications for bumble bee conservation, given that pollen‐feeding commensals might become harmful at high densities or act as disease vectors.     

Do exotic bumblebees and honeybees compete with native flower-visiting insects in Tasmania?

Honeybees, Apis mellifera, have been introduced by man throughout the globe. More recently, other bee species including various bumblebees (Bombus spp.) have been introduced to several new regions. Here we examine the impacts of honeybees and the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, on native flower-visiting insects in Tasmania. To assess whether native insects have lower abundance or are excluded in areas that have been colonised by exotic bees, we quantified the abundance, diversity and floral preferences of flower-visiting insects at sites where bumblebees and honeybees were present, and compared them to sites where they were absent. This was achieved by hand searches at 67 sites, and by deploying sticky traps at 122 sites. Honeybees were by far the most abundant bee species overall, and dominated the bee fauna at most sites. There was considerable niche overlap between honeybees, bumblebees and native bees in terms of the flowers that they visited. Sites where bumblebees were established had similar species richness, diversity and abundance of native flower-visiting insects compared to sites where bumblebees were absent. In contrast, native bees were more than three times more abundant at the few sites where honeybees were absent, compared to those where they were present. Our results are suggestive of competition between honeybees and native bees, but exclusion experiments are needed to provide a definitive test.     

Distance models as a tool for modelling detection probability and density of native bumblebees

Effective monitoring of native bee populations requires accurate estimates of population size and relative abundance among habitats. Current bee survey methods, such as netting or pan trapping, may be adequate for a variety of study objectives but are limited by a failure to account for imperfect detection. Biases due to imperfect detection could result in inaccurate abundance estimates or erroneous insights about the response of bees to different environments. To gauge the potential biases of currently employed survey methods, we compared abundance estimates of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) derived from hierarchical distance sampling models (HDS) to bumblebee counts collected from fixed‐area net surveys (“net counts”) and fixed‐width transect counts (“transect counts”) at 47 early‐successional forest patches in Pennsylvania. Our HDS models indicated that detection probabilities of Bombus spp. were imperfect and varied with survey‐ and site‐covariates. Despite being conspicuous, Bombus spp. were not reliably detected beyond 5 m. Habitat associations of Bombus spp. density were similar across methods, but the strength of association with shrub cover differed between HDS and net counts. Additionally, net counts suggested sites with more grass hosted higher Bombus spp. densities whereas HDS suggested that grass cover was associated with higher detection probability but not Bombus spp. density. Density estimates generated from net counts and transect counts were 80%–89% lower than estimates generated from distance sampling. Our findings suggest that distance modelling provides a reliable method to assess Bombus spp. density and habitat associations, while accounting for imperfect detection caused by distance from observer, vegetation structure, and survey covariates. However, detection/non‐detection data collected via point‐counts, line‐transects and distance sampling for Bombus spp. are unlikely to yield species‐specific density estimates unless individuals can be identified by sight, without capture. Our results will be useful for informing the design of monitoring programs for Bombus spp. and other pollinators.     

Tailoring your bee sampling protocol: Comparing three methods reveals the best approaches to capturing bees

1. Bees are prolific, vital pollinators in agricultural and natural settings, but some taxa are declining. Surveying bees is crucial to understand the needs of these taxa; however, we lack a fine-grained understanding of assemblages associated with different sampling methods that would enable us to analyse data range-wide.
2. Here we examine the difference in abundance and richness of bees (bee bowls and vane traps only) and bumble bees (genus Bombus; bee bowls, blue vane traps and target netting) sampled with these methods from mixed-grass prairie to alpine habitats in Wyoming, USA.
3. We collected four times more bees and twice as many genera of bees in vane traps than bee bowls. Vane traps captured more individuals of abundant genera than bee bowls.
4. Bombus species abundance did not vary between vane traps and target netting; however, richness was higher in vane traps. Bee bowls captured few Bombus species.
5. Overall, we recommend using vane traps to sample most bees, and a combination of vane traps and target netting to collect bumble bees. We evaluated how three sampling techniques perform when surveying for wild bees, which will aid in identifying declining species as well as monitoring species of conservation concern.

     

The relationship between the abundances of bumblebees and honeybees in a native habitat

Abstract. 1. The western honeybee, Apis mellifera, has been introduced to many parts of the world and is sometimes purported to be detrimental to native bees because it reduces their food base. It is seldom viewed in this light in Europe; however, when beekeepers maintain very high bee densities, the species could also be displacing insects in its native European range by reducing the resource base. 2. In England, populations of bumblebees (Bombus Latr. Hym.) have been decreasing both in terms of diversity and abundance, mainly because of a loss of habitat resulting from agricultural intensification. The impact of competition from other flower feeders is largely unknown. 3. Nineteen dry lowland heaths in southern England were sampled once for honeybees and bumblebees. Honeybee abundance varied from 4 to 81 bees per 100 m² (mean = 30.89, median = 23), whereas bumblebees varied from 2 to 17 individuals per 100 m² (mean = 8.26, median = 7), belonging to between one and five species. There was a negative association between honeybee and bumblebee abundance but there was no apparent relationship between honeybee abundance and bumblebee diversity. 4. The Bray–Curtis coefficient was used to compare the similarity in honeybee and bumblebee floral host breadth at these 19 sites. The coefficient was negatively associated with honeybee abundance: thus where honeybees were most abundant, bumblebees were fewer and/or foraged on different flower species. 5. Foraging host breadth was also examined at four heathlands over a field season (April to September). No association between honeybee abundance and foraging host breadth was found for short‐tongued bees, although there was some evidence for a change in floral host breadth for long‐tongued bees. 6. It is concluded that the impact of honeybees on bumblebees is complex. Although competition between the two species cannot be ruled out, it is perhaps equally likely that bumblebees decline in response to other factors, and that honeybees move independently of this decline.     

Species richness estimation and determinants of species detectability in butterfly monitoring programmes

Abstract 1. Species richness is the most widely used biodiversity index, but can be hard to measure. Many species remain undetected, hence raw species counts will often underestimate true species richness. In contrast, capture–recapture methods estimate true species richness and correct for imperfect and varying detectability. 2. Detectability is a crucial quantity that provides the link between a species count and true species richness. For insects, it has hardly ever been estimated, although this is required for the interpretation of species counts. 3. In the Swiss butterfly monitoring programme about 100 transect routes are surveyed seven times a year using a highly standardised protocol. In July 2003, control observers made two additional surveys on 38 transects. Data from these 38 quadrats were analysed to see whether currently available capture–recapture models can provide quadrat‐specific estimates of species richness, and to estimate species detectability in relation to transect, observer, survey, region, and abundance. 4. Species richness over the entire season cannot be estimated using current capture–recapture methods. The species pool was open, preventing use of closed population models, and detectability varied by species, preventing use of current open population models. Assuming a closed species pool during two mid‐season (July) surveys, a Jackknife capture–recapture method was used that accounts for heterogeneity to estimate mean detectability and species richness. 5. In every case, more species were present than were counted. Mean species detectability was 0.61 (SE 0.01) with significant differences between observers (range 0.37–0.83). Species‐specific detection at time t+ 1 was then modelled for those species seen at t for three mid‐season surveys. Detectability averaged 0.50 (range 0.17–0.81) for individual species and 0.65, 0.44, and 0.42 for surveys. Abundant species were detected more easily, although this relationship explained only 5% of variation in species detectability. 6. These are important, although not entirely unexpected, results for species richness estimation of short‐lived animals. Raw counts of species may be misleading species richness indicators unless many surveys are conducted. Monitoring programmes should be calibrated, i.e. the assumption of constant detectability over dimensions of interest needs to be tested. The development of capture–recapture or similar models that can cope with both open populations and heterogeneous species detectability to estimate species richness should be a research priority.     

Pollinator visitation to mass-flowering courgette and co-flowering wild flowers: Implications for pollination and bee conservation on farms

Managing the complex relationship between pollinators and their habitat requirements is of particular concern to growers of pollinator-dependent crop species, such as courgette (Cucurbita pepo). Naturally occurring wild flowers (i.e. agricultural weeds) offer a free, sustainable, and often underappreciated resource for pollinators, however, they may compete with crop flowers for visits. To understand the extent to which floral resources mediate pollinator visitation to courgette flowers and courgette fields, plant community and pollinator visitation data were collected at two spatial scales: field scale (in margins, and in the cropped area) and farm scale (500 m and 2000 m radii) for nine courgette fields across the UK. Apis mellifera (honeybees) and Bombus spp. (bumblebees) were the only pollinators observed to visit courgette flowers. Bumblebees were significantly more abundant on courgette flowers in fields with a greater species richness of wild flowers in the crop, whilst honeybees were significantly more abundant on courgette flowers in areas with less semi-natural habitat. For both honeybees and bumblebees, their abundance in field margins did not significantly reduce their abundance on courgette flowers, suggesting that wild flowers were not competing with courgette flowers for pollinator visitation. Although solitary bees were not observed to visit courgette flowers, their abundance and species richness in courgette fields were significantly greater with more semi-natural habitat and a greater species richness of wild flowers. Therefore, allowing uncultivated areas around the crop to be colonised by species-rich wild flowers is an effective way of boosting the abundance of bumblebees, which are important visitors to courgette flowers, as well as the abundance and species richness of solitary bees, thereby benefitting pollinator conservation.     

Honey bee and bumblebee trypanosomatids: specificity and potential for transmission

Abstract 1. Experimental studies of multihost parasite dynamics are scarce. Understanding the transmission dynamics of parasites in these systems is a key task in developing better models of parasite evolution and to make more accurate predictions of disease dynamics. 2. Bumblebee species (Bombus spp.) host the trypanosomatid parasite, Crithidia bombi. Its transmission in the field occurs through the shared use of flowers. Flowers are a perfect scenario for inter‐taxa transmission of diseases because they are used by a wide range of animals. 3. Honey bees host a poorly studied trypanosomatid, Crithidia mellificae. In this study, five questions have been experimentally addressed: (a) Can C. bombi infect honey bees? (b) Can C. mellificae infect bumblebees? (c) Can the honey bee act as a vector for C. bombi? (d) Are C. bombi cells present in honey‐bee faeces? (e) Does C. bombi have an effect on the mortality of honey bees after ingestion? 4. While both parasites were found to be specific to their hosts at the genus level, results suggest that honey bees may play a role in the epidemiology of C. bombi transmission.     

Bombus terrestris in a mass‐flowering pollinator‐dependent crop: A mutualistic relationship?

Bumblebees (Bombus spp.) rely on an abundant and diverse selection of floral resources to meet their nutritional requirements. In farmed landscapes, mass‐flowering crops can provide an important forage resource for bumblebees, with increased visitation from bumblebees into mass‐flowering crops having an additional benefit to growers who require pollination services. This study explores the mutualistic relationship between Bombus terrestris L. (buff‐tailed bumblebee), a common species in European farmland, and the mass‐flowering crop courgette (Cucurbita pepo L.) to see how effective B. terrestris is at pollinating courgette and in return how courgette may affect B. terrestris colony dynamics. By combining empirical data on nectar and pollen availability with model simulations using the novel bumblebee model Bumble‐BEEHAVE, we were able to quantify and simulate for the first time, the importance of courgette as a mass‐flowering forage resource for bumblebees. Courgette provides vast quantities of nectar to ensure a high visitation rate, which combined with abundant pollen grains, enables B. terrestris to have a high pollination potential. While B. terrestris showed a strong fidelity to courgette flowers for nectar, courgette pollen was not found in any pollen loads from returning foragers. Nonetheless, model simulations showed that early season courgette (nectar) increased the number of hibernating queens, colonies, and adult workers in the modeled landscapes. Synthesis and applications. Courgette has the potential to improve bumblebee population dynamics; however, the lack of evidence of the bees collecting courgette pollen in this study suggests that bees can only benefit from this transient nectar source if alternative floral resources, particularly pollen, are also available to fulfill bees’ nutritional requirements in space and time. Therefore, providing additional forage resources could simultaneously improve pollination services and bumblebee populations.     

Does multi‐level environmental filtering determine the functional and phylogenetic composition of wild bee species assemblages?

A central goal in ecology is to develop theories that explain the diversity and distribution of species. The evolutionary history of species and their functional traits may provide mechanistic links between community assembly and the environment. Such links may be hierarchically structured such that the strength of environmental filtering decreases in a step‐wise manner from regional conditions through landscape heterogeneity to local habitat conditions. We sampled the wild bee species assemblages in power‐line strips transecting forests in south‐eastern Norway. We used altitude, landscape diversity surrounding sites and plant species composition, together with total plant cover as proxies for regional, landscape and local environmental filters, respectively. The species richness and abundance of wild bees decreased with altitude. The reduction in species richness and abundance was accompanied by a phylogenetic clustering of wild bee individuals. Furthermore, regional filters followed by local filters best explained the structure of the functional species composition. Sites at high altitudes and sites with Ericaceae‐dominated plant communities tended to have larger bees and a higher proportion of social and spring‐emerging bees. When Bombus species were excluded from the analysis, the proportion of pollen specialists increased with the dominance of Ericaceae. Furthermore, we also found that the taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional compositional turnover between sites was higher in the northern region than in the southern part of the study region. Altogether, these results suggest that regional filters drive the species richness and abundance in trait‐groups whereas local filters have more descrete sorting effects. We conclude that the model of multi‐level environmental filters provides a good conceptual model for community ecology. We suggest that future studies should focus on the relationship between the biogeographical history of species and their current distribution, and on the assumption that closely related species do indeed compete more intensely than distantly related species.     

Variation in gut microbial communities and its association with pathogen infection in wild bumble bees (Bombus)

Bacterial gut symbiont communities are critical for the health of many insect species. However, little is known about how microbial communities vary among host species or how they respond to anthropogenic disturbances. Bacterial communities that differ in richness or composition may vary in their ability to provide nutrients or defenses. We used deep sequencing to investigate gut microbiota of three species in the genus Bombus (bumble bees). Bombus are among the most economically and ecologically important non-managed pollinators. Some species have experienced dramatic declines, probably due to pathogens and land-use change. We examined variation within and across bee species and between semi-natural and conventional agricultural habitats. We categorized as ‘core bacteria'' any operational taxonomic units (OTUs) with closest hits to sequences previously found exclusively or primarily in the guts of honey bees and bumble bees (genera Apis and Bombus). Microbial community composition differed among bee species. Richness, defined as number of bacterial OTUs, was highest for B. bimaculatus and B. impatiens. For B. bimaculatus, this was due to high richness of non-core bacteria. We found little effect of habitat on microbial communities. Richness of non-core bacteria was negatively associated with bacterial abundance in individual bees, possibly due to deeper sampling of non-core bacteria in bees with low populations of core bacteria. Infection by the gut parasite Crithidia was negatively associated with abundance of the core bacterium Gilliamella and positively associated with richness of non-core bacteria. Our results indicate that Bombus species have distinctive gut communities, and community-level variation is associated with pathogen infection.     

Comparative analysis of volatile components from labial glands of male Japanese bumblebees (Bombus spp.)

The volatile components from the labial glands of males of six Japanese bumblebee species were analyzed and compared. Clear species‐specificity was found. Ethyl dodecanoate was identified as the major component from the glands of Bombus (Bombus) hypocrita hypocrita and Bombus (Bombus) hypocrita sapporoensis while dihydrofarnesal and dihydrofarnesol were the major components from Bombus (Bombus) ignitus. Citronellol and trans,trans‐farnesol were found from Bombus (Pyrobombus) ardens ardens and Bombus (Diversobombus) diversus diversus, respectively. trans,trans‐Farnesol was also found from Bombus (Diversobombus) diversus tersatus in Hokkaido. Such differences strongly suggest that these chemicals play an important role in reproductive isolation between sympatric species of Japanese bumblebees.     

The superiority of bumblebees to honeybees as pollinators: insect visits to raspberry flowers

Abstract.

• 1 The behaviour and activity patterns of Apis mellifera and of five species of Bombus were analysed in relation to climatic variables and nectar quality on three varieties of unsprayed cultivated raspberry (Rubus idaeus) in eastern Scotland.
• 2 Stages of floral morphology and reward were similar for the three varieties: young flowers offered both nectar and pollen, but medium and old flowers offered nectar only, in diminishing quantities.
• 3 A wide range of insects visited raspberry flowers, but bees were dominant, bumblebees being responsible for about 60% of all visits and honeybees making up most of the remaining percentage. All bees had substantial pollen deposited on their bodies during visits, though few specifically collected it.
• 4 Bombus spp. were found to favour young (receptive) flowers strongly, especially early in the morning when pollen was most abundant: whilst Apis visited unselectively. Bumblebees also foraged over substantially longer periods of the day, and in poorer weather, some being present at most times of observation; and they foraged more quickly in terms of flower visits per minute.
• 5 Bombus carried more pollen on their bodies than Apis, and also deposited more pollen on raspberry stigmas, with B.lapidarius and B.terrestris being particularly effective and also being the most abundant species. All bumblebees also foraged over a longer range, moving between canes and rows more frequently than did honeybees.
• 6 Bumblebees are therefore likely to be substantially more important as pollinators of raspberries than are honeybees, especially as raspberries though moderately self-fertile may exhibit metaxenia. Reasons why Bombus may be the preferred pollinator in most sites of raspberry cultivation are discussed, together with implications for present and future growers.

     

Effects of landscape cover and local habitat characteristics on visiting bees in tropical orchards

相似文献   

Inter‐assemblage facilitation: the functional diversity of cavity‐producing beetles drives the size diversity of cavity‐nesting bees

Inter‐specific interactions are important drivers and maintainers of biodiversity. Compared to trophic and competitive interactions, the role of non‐trophic facilitation among species has received less attention. Cavity‐nesting bees nest in old beetle borings in dead wood, with restricted diameters corresponding to the body size of the bee species. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the functional diversity of cavity‐producing wood boring beetles ‐ in terms of cavity diameters ‐ drives the size diversity of cavity‐nesting bees. The invertebrate communities were sampled in 30 sites, located in forested landscapes along an elevational gradient. We regressed the species richness and abundance of cavity nesting bees against the species richness and abundance of wood boring beetles, non‐wood boring beetles and elevation. The proportion of cavity nesting bees in bee species assemblage was regressed against the species richness and abundance of wood boring beetles. We also tested the relationships between the size diversity of cavity nesting bees and wood boring beetles. The species richness and abundance of cavity nesting bees increased with the species richness and abundance of wood boring beetles. No such relationship was found for non‐wood boring beetles. The abundance of wood boring beetles was also related to an increased proportion of cavity nesting bee individuals. Moreover, the size diversity of cavity‐nesting bees increased with the functional diversity of wood boring beetles. Specifically, the mean and dispersion of bee body sizes increased with the functional dispersion of large wood boring beetles. The positive relationships between cavity producing bees and cavity nesting bees suggest that non‐trophic facilitative interactions between species assemblages play important roles in organizing bee species assemblages. Considering a community‐wide approach may therefore be required if we are to successfully understand and conserve wild bee species assemblages in forested landscapes.     

Bumble bee species exhibit divergent responses to urbanisation in a Southern California landscape

1. Bees are ecologically important pollinators that are threatened by disease, habitat degradation, and habitat loss. Bee species that share ecological traits (e.g. body size, diet breadth, and sociality) may often respond similarly to environmental disturbance; however, few studies have examined the extent to which closely related, ecologically similar species exhibit divergent responses to the same forms of disturbance. 2. In the present study, the responses of bumble bees (Apidae: genus Bombus) to urbanization are examined by combining field surveys with the quantification of local‐ and landscape‐level variables using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). During the spring and summer of 2012 and 2013, 57, bumble bees were surveyed in 1‐ha plots in San Diego County, California that spanned a gradient of urbanisation. Species‐level, occurrence (presence/absence) data and logistic regressions were then used to identify determinants of Bombus occurrence across this landscape. 3. Approximately 1000 Bombus individuals belonging to three species were observed: B. californicus Smith, B. melanopygus Cresson, and B. vosnesenskii Radoszkowski. The occurrence of all Bombus species was negatively related to impermeable surface cover within study plots, but species responded uniquely to other plot‐scale variables and exhibited distinctive patterns of scale‐dependency with respect to impermeable surface cover surrounding plots. 4. Urbanisation negatively affected all three focal bumble bee species in this study. Species‐specific responses to plot‐scale and landscape‐scale variables presumably reflect interspecific trait differences (e.g. body size, tongue length, and foraging behaviour). Unique responses to urbanisation caution against pooling species into functional groups based merely on taxonomic relationships or perceived ecological similarities.     

Wild bee diversity is enhanced by experimental removal of timber harvest residue within intensively managed conifer forest

The use of timber harvest residue as an energy source is thought to have environmental benefits relative to food‐based crops, yet the ecological impact of this practice remains largely unknown. We assessed whether the abundance and diversity of wild bees (Apoidea) were influenced by the removal of harvest residue and associated soil compaction within managed conifer forest in western Oregon, USA. We sampled bees over two years (2014–2015) on study plots that were subjected to five treatments representing gradients in removal of harvest residue and soil compaction. We collected >7,500 bee specimens from 92 distinct species/morphospecies that represented five of the seven bee families. We trapped 3x more individuals in the second year of the study despite identical sampling effort in both years, with most trapped bees classified as ground‐nesting species. Members of the sweat bee family (Halictidae) comprised more than half of all specimens, and the most abundant genus was composed of metallic green bees (Agapostemon, 33.6%), followed by long‐horned bees (Melissodes, 16.5%), sweat bees (Halictus, 15.9%), and bumble bees (Bombus, 13.6%). In both years, abundance and observed species richness were greatest in the most intensive harvest residue treatment, with other treatments having similar values for both measures. Our study indicates that early successional managed conifer forest that has experienced removal of harvest residue can harbor a surprising diversity of wild bees, which are likely to have important contributions to the broader ecological community through the pollination services they provide.     

Pollen-Foraging Dynamics of Subalpine Bumblebees (Bombus Latr.)

Abstract A 23-year study on Mount Rainier of nectar-foraging hummingbirds and pollen-foraging bumblebees (Bom-bus Latr.) indicated a constant relative frequency of Bombus species in the area and a wide occurrence of insect species on flowers plus a wide range of flower species pollinated by a single insect. Early-blooming plants had a high queen/worker pollinator ratio, while workers predominated on later-blooming plants. No altitudinal difference in distribution of Bombus species occurred. Analysis of 955 corbicular pollen loads from 1158 bumblebees collected yielded 49.5% monolecty for queens and 34.5% for workers with a wider range for queens than for workers. Colors of corollas photographed in visible and ultraviolet light corresponded to the visual spectra of animal pollinators. In the stable plant-pollinator community investigated, pollinating insect activity appears phenologically controlled by floral anthesis and behaviorally related to floral form and function. Bumblebee tongue length, however. Is not a valid determinant for foraging niche separation except in Castilleja with a deep corolla tube accommodating long tongues of hummingbirds and bumblebees. It is concluded that in a biotic community well-coordinated with the physical environment, limited flower constancy of pollen-foraging pollinators appears to contribute a necessary degree of adaptive versatility through sharing of insect and floral resources. Flower constancy is primarily a function of the circumstance in which a pollinator operates and not simply a characteristic of the pollinator itself.     

Patterns of parasitism among conopid flies parasitizing bumblebees

The effects of host size and host species on the prevalence and fitness of conopid flies (Diptera: Conopidae) parasitizing bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) were investigated. Field data from nine sites across south‐western Alberta, Canada, showed that conopids parasitized, on average, 12.3% of workers and 3.5% of male bees. In general, bee mass was a better predictor of host use and conopid offspring size than bee species. Host mass could not, however, explain the very low prevalence of conopids in the long‐tongued bumblebee, Bombus californicus Smith, or in male bees in general. Conopids predominately infested bees of intermediate size, and as a result, occurred most commonly in the intermediately sized species, B. flavifrons Cresson. Host quality, in terms of conopid offspring size, increased as a non‐linear function of bee size. The results are discussed with respect to the impact of conopids on bumblebee populations, and the relation between host quality and patterns of host use.