Specialised protagonists in a plant–pollinator interaction: the pollination of Blumenbachia insignis (Loasaceae)

• Analyses of resource presentation, floral morphology and pollinator behaviour are essential for understanding specialised plant‐pollinator systems. We investigated whether foraging by individual bee pollinators fits the floral morphology and functioning of Blumenbachia insignis, whose flowers are characterised by a nectar scale‐staminode complex and pollen release by thigmonastic stamen movements.
• We described pollen and nectar presentation, analysed the breeding system and the foraging strategy of bee pollinators. We determined the nectar production pattern and documented variations in the longevity of floral phases and stigmatic pollen loads of pollinator‐visited and unvisited flowers.
• Bicolletes indigoticus (Colletidae) was the sole pollinator with females revisiting flowers in staminate and pistillate phases at short intervals, guaranteeing cross‐pollen flow. Nectar stored in the nectar scale‐staminode complex had a high sugar concentration and was produced continuously in minute amounts (~0.09 μl·h^?1). Pushing the scales outward, bees took up nectar, triggering stamen movements and accelerating pollen presentation. Experimental simulation of this nectar uptake increased the number of moved stamens per hour by a factor of four. Flowers visited by pollinators received six‐fold more pollen on the stigma than unvisited flowers, had shortened staminate and pistillate phases and increased fruit and seed set.
• Flower handling and foraging by Bicolletes indigoticus were consonant with the complex flower morphology and functioning of Blumenbachia insignis. Continuous nectar production in minute quantities but at high sugar concentration influences the pollen foraging of the bees. Partitioning of resources lead to absolute flower fidelity and stereotyped foraging behaviour by the sole effective oligolectic bee pollinator.

     

Pollination efficiency and foraging behaviour of honey bees and non‐Apis bees to sweet cherry

1. Crop pollination generally increases with pollinator diversity and wild pollinator visitation. To optimize crop pollination, it is necessary to investigate the pollination contribution of different pollinator species. In the present study, we examined this contribution of honey bees and non‐Apis bees (bumble bees, mason bees and other solitary bees) in sweet cherry.
2. We assessed the pollination efficiency (fruit set of flowers receiving only one visit) and foraging behaviour (flower visitation rate, probability of tree change, probability of row change and contact with the stigma) of honey bees and different types of non‐Apis bees.
3. Single visit pollination efficiency on sweet cherry was higher for both mason bees and solitary bees compared with bumble bees and honey bees. The different measures of foraging behaviour were variable among non‐Apis bees and honey bees. Adding to their high single visit efficiency, mason bees also visited significantly more flower per minute, and they had a high probability of tree change and a high probability to contact the stigma.
4. The results of the present study highlight the higher pollination performance of solitary bees and especially mason bees compared with bumble bees and honey bees. Management to support species with high pollination efficiency and effective foraging behaviour will promote crop pollination.

     

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.     

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.     

Quality versus quantity: Foraging decisions in the honeybee (Apis mellifera scutellata) feeding on wildflower nectar and fruit juice

Foraging animals must often decide among resources which vary in quality and quantity. Nectar is a resource that exists along a continuum of quality in terms of sugar concentration and is the primary energy source for bees. Alternative sugar sources exist, including fruit juice, which generally has lower energetic value than nectar. We observed many honeybees (Apis mellifera scutellata) foraging on juice from fallen guava (Psidium guajava) fruit near others foraging on nectar. To investigate whether fruit and nectar offered contrasting benefits of quality and quantity, we compared honeybee foraging performance on P. guajava fruit versus two wildflowers growing within 50 m, Richardia brasiliensis and Tridax procumbens. Bees gained weight significantly faster on fruit, 2.72 mg/min, than on either flower (0.17 and 0.12 mg/min, respectively). However, the crop sugar concentration of fruit foragers was significantly lower than for either flower (12.4% vs. 37.0% and 22.7%, respectively). Fruit foragers also spent the most time handling and the least time flying, suggesting that fruit juice was energetically inexpensive to collect. We interpret honeybee foraging decisions in the context of existing foraging models and consider how nest‐patch distance may be a key factor for central place foragers choosing between resources of contrasting quality and quantity. We also discuss how dilute solutions, such as fruit juice, can help maintain colony sugar–water balance. These results show the benefits of feeding on resources with contrasting quality and quantity and that even low‐quality resources have value.     

Foraging by Male and Female Solitary Bees with Implications for Pollination

Both male and female solitary bees visit flowers for rewards. Sex related differences in foraging efficiency may also affect their probability to act as pollinators. In some major genera of solitary bees, males can be identified from a distance enabling a comparative foraging-behavior study. We have simultaneously examined nectar foraging of males and females of three bee species on five plant species in northern Israel. Males and females harvested equal nectar amounts but males spent less time in each flower increasing their foraging efficiency at this scale. The overall average visit frequencies of females and males was 27.2 and 21.6 visits per flower per minute respectively. Females flew shorter distances increasing their visit frequency, relative foraging efficiency and their probability to pollinate. The proportion of conspecific pollen was higher on females, indicating higher floral constancy and pollination probability. The longer flights of males increase their probability to cross-pollinate. Our results indicate that female solitary bees are more efficient foragers; females seem also to be more efficient pollinators but males contribute more to long-distance pollen flow.     

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.     

Flower and nectar attributes of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) plants in relation to their attractiveness to honeybees (Apis mellifera L.)

Flower morphology, nectary structure, nectar traits and rates of honeybee foraging on pepper plants were studied. The nectary appears as swellings on the basal part of the ovary. The nectariferous cells are smaller and denser than the neighbouring parenchyma. Stomata are present in the nectary epidermis, but do not appear on the other parts of the ovary epidermis. Seven pepper breeding lines were grown near a bee yard in Rehovot. Five to six fold differences in nectar volume were found between the extreme genotypes. Nectar volumes were higher during noon and afternoon hours, as compared with morning hours. High correlation coefficients between nectar volume and sugar concentration were found. These were significant for the four high nectar yielding genotypes, ranging between r = 0.65 to r = 0.94. Male-fertile flowers produced more nectar and higher sugar concentration than sterile ones. Skewed distribution was observed in nectar volume of F₂ populations, but relatively low heritability values were calculated. Pepper nectar contains fructose and glucose only. The former occupies 52–82 % of the total sugar content. Pepper genotypes varied in frequency of honeybee visits and significant correlation between sugar quantity and number of honeybee visits per flower was evident. Fertile pepper flowers are not very attractive to honeybees and male-sterile flowers are even less so. The considerable variation in nectar characteristics can be exploited to increase attractiveness to honeybees, thus facilitating bee pollination in commercial production of F₁hybrid seeds and improve fruit quality.     

Netted crop covers reduce honeybee foraging activity and colony strength in a mass flowering crop

The widespread use of protective covers in horticulture represents a novel landscape‐level change, presenting the challenges for crop pollination. Honeybees (Apis mellifera L) are pollinators of many crops, but their behavior can be affected by conditions under covers. To determine how netting crop covers can affect honeybee foraging dynamics, colony health, and pollination services, we assessed the performance of 52 nucleus honeybee colonies in five covered and six uncovered kiwifruit orchards. Colony strength was estimated pre‐ and postintroduction, and the foraging of individual bees (including pollen, nectar, and naïve foragers) was monitored in a subset of the hives fitted with RFID readers. Simultaneously, we evaluated pollination effectiveness by measuring flower visitation rates and the number of seeds produced after single honeybee visits. Honeybee colonies under cover exhibited both an acute loss of foragers and changes in the behavior of successful foragers. Under cover, bees were roughly three times less likely to return after their first trip outside the hive. Consequently, the number of adult bees in hives declined at a faster rate in these orchards, with colonies losing on average 1,057 ± 274 of their bees in under two weeks. Bees that did forage under cover completed fewer trips provisioning their colony, failing to reenter after a few short‐duration trips. These effects are likely to have implications for colony health and productivity. We also found that bee density (bees/thousand flowers) and visitation rates to flowers were lower under cover; however, we did not detect a resultant change in pollination. Our findings highlight the need for environment‐specific management techniques for pollinators. Improving honeybee orientation under covers and increasing our understanding of the effects of covers on bee nutrition and brood rearing should be primary objectives for maintaining colonies and potentially improving pollination in these systems.     

Windows of opportunity and the temporal structuring of foraging activity in a desert solitary bee

1. Females of the desert solitary bee Anthophora pauperata collect nectar and pollen almost exclusively from Alkanna orientalis (Boraginaceae). The bee and plant are found together in the early spring, living in the bottom of steep-sided wadis (dry river valleys) at an altitude of 1500 m in Egyptian Sinai. 2. Female A. pauperata showed clear morning and afternoon peaks in foraging activity, separated by a 2–3 h midday period spent in their underground nests. This study analyses the following in order to identify the factors structuring this daily pattern: thermal aspects of the bee and its environment, temporal patterns of resource provision by the plant, and female nectar and pollen foraging behaviour. 3. Although A. pauperata can generate substantial heat endothermically, morning and evening ambient temperatures well below 10 °C defined a thermal window within which foraging occurred. Maximum air temperatures were moderate (25–30 °C), and examination of the physiology and behaviour of A. pauperata suggests that the midday reduction in flight activity was not due to thermal constraints. 4. Alkanna orientalis produces protandrous hermaphroditic flowers. Female A. pauperata collected pollen from male-phase flowers and harvested nectar preferentially from female-phase flowers. Although the nectar standing crop was relatively constant throughout the day, pollen availability peaked strongly in the early afternoon. 5. Female A. pauperata visited young male-phase flowers as soon as they opened, generating an early afternoon peak in pollen foraging activity and depleting the pollen standing crop rapidly. A morning peak in pollen foraging occurred when females gleaned remnant pollen from flowers that had opened the previous day. Pollen availability in the morning was far lower than in the early afternoon, and the time taken to collect a full pollen load in the morning was significantly longer. Collection of pollen in the morning despite very low resource availability suggests that pollen may be a limiting resource for A. pauperata. 6. In contrast to many existing examples of bimodal activity patterns in highly endothermic bees, the bimodal activity patterns of female A. pauperata appear to be driven not by thermal considerations but by daily patterns of pollen release from its principal food source.     

Evidence for mutualism between a flower-piercing carpenter bee and ocotillo: use of pollen and nectar by nesting bees

Abstract.

• 1 Carpenter bees (Xylocopa californica arizonensis) in west Texas, U.S.A., gather pollen and ‘rob’ nectar from flowers of ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens). When common, carpenter bees are an effective pollen vector for ocotillo. We examined ocotillo's importance as a food source for carpenter bees.
• 2 The visitation rate of carpenter bees to ocotillo flowers in 1988 averaged 0.51 visits/flower/h and was 4 times greater than that of queen bumble bees (Bombus pennsylvanicus sonorus), the next most common visitor. Nectar was harvested thoroughly and pollen was removed from the majority of flowers. Hummingbird visits were rare.
• 3 Pollen grains from larval food provisions were identified from sixteen carpenter bee nests. On average, 53% of pollen grains sampled were ocotillo, 39% were mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), and 8% were Zygophyllaceae (Larrea tridentata or Guaiacum angustifolium). Carpenter bee brood size averaged 5.8 per nest.
• 4 We measured the number of flowers, and production of pollen and nectar per flower by mature ocotillo plants, as well as the quantity of pollen and sugar in larval provisions. An average plant produced enough pollen and nectar sugar to support the growth of eight to thirteen bee larvae. Ocotillo thus has the potential to contribute significantly to population growth of one of its key pollinators.
• 5 Although this carpenter bee species, like others, is a nectar parasite of many plant species, it appears to be engaged in a strong mutualism with a plant that serves as both a pollen and as a nectar source during carpenter bee breeding periods.

     

Influence of functional traits on foraging behaviour and pollination efficiency of wild social and solitary bees visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda

An on-farm pollination experiment was conducted during the June–August and November–February blooming seasons of 2007 to 2008, in 30 small-scale coffee fields characterised by different habitat and vegetation types. The study was conducted in order to determine the best pollinator groups for coffee in Uganda and to collect relevant field information and determine the pollination efficiency of different bee species. Results indicate that across blooming seasons, coffee flowers were visited by 24–36 bee species. Hypotrigona gribodoi was the most frequent flower visitor, comprising over 60% of 5941 bee-visits recorded. Foraging rate and pollination speed varied among bee species. Solitary bees foraged on more flowers than social bees, but they spent less time per flower visited. Solitary bees visited more coffee trees and fields, but deposited less pollen, whereas social bees visited less trees and coffee fields in the landscape, but deposited more pollen on flowers. Fruit set was of 87%, 64% and 0.9%, respectively, in hand-cross pollination, open pollination and controlled-pollination treatments. Fruit abortion due to self-pollination was insignificant in this study. There was variability in pollination efficiency of different bee species. Pollination efficiency varied more significantly with sociality than with other bee functional traits and was not significantly influenced by tongue length and bee body size. Single-flower visits by social and solitary bees resulted in 89.7% and 68.14% fruit set, respectively. The most efficient bee species was Meliponula ferruginea (98.3%) followed by Meliponula nebulata (97.1%). Thus, very good pollinator species were wild social bees (mainly stingless bees) as opposed to honeybees and solitary bees that were previously reported to be the best pollinators of coffee in Panama and Indonesia. Morphological and anatomical characteristics of the bee pollen storage features may explain the difference in foraging behaviour activities and in pollination efficiency of social and solitary afrotropical bee species visiting lowland coffee in Uganda. In addition, pollination efficiency was influenced by land-use intensity, field management systems and habitat types found in the immediate surroundings of coffee fields, but not by coffee field size, coffee genotypes and mass blooming wild vegetation. It is recommended to farmers to adopt pollinator-friendly conservation and farming practices such as keeping an uncultivated portion (25%–30%) of their farms as pollinator reservoirs, protecting semi-natural habitats found in the vicinity of coffee fields, as well as promoting high on-farm tree cover to benefit a functionally diverse pollinator community.     

Honey bees and wild pollinators differ in their preference for and use of introduced floral resources

Introduced plants may be important foraging resources for honey bees and wild pollinators, but how often and why pollinators visit introduced plants across an entire plant community is not well understood. Understanding the importance of introduced plants for pollinators could help guide management of these plants and conservation of pollinator habitat. We assessed how floral abundance and pollinator preference influence pollinator visitation rate and diversity on 30 introduced versus 24 native plants in central New York. Honey bees visited introduced and native plants at similar rates regardless of floral abundance. In contrast, as floral abundance increased, wild pollinator visitation rate decreased more strongly for introduced plants than native plants. Introduced plants as a group and native plants as a group did not differ in bee diversity or preference, but honey bees and wild pollinators preferred different plant species. As a case study, we then focused on knapweed (Centaurea spp.), an introduced plant that was the most preferred plant by honey bees, and that beekeepers value as a late‐summer foraging resource. We compared the extent to which honey bees versus wild pollinators visited knapweed relative to coflowering plants, and we quantified knapweed pollen and nectar collection by honey bees across 22 New York apiaries. Honey bees visited knapweed more frequently than coflowering plants and at a similar rate as all wild pollinators combined. All apiaries contained knapweed pollen in nectar, 86% of apiaries contained knapweed pollen in bee bread, and knapweed was sometimes a main pollen or nectar source for honey bees in late summer. Our results suggest that because of diverging responses to floral abundance and preferences for different plants, honey bees and wild pollinators differ in their use of introduced plants. Depending on the plant and its abundance, removing an introduced plant may impact honey bees more than wild pollinators.     

Do local conspecific density and floral display size influence fruit set via pollinator visitation in Orchis militaris?

Plant density varies naturally, from isolated plants to clumped individuals, and this can influence pollinator foraging behaviour and plant reproductive success. In addition, the effect of conspecific density on reproduction may depend on the pollination system, and deceptive species differ from rewarding ones in this regard, a high density being often associated with low fruit set in deceptive plants. In our study, we aimed to determine how local conspecific density and floral display size (i.e. number of flowers per plant) affect fruit set in a deceptive orchid (Orchis militaris) through changes in pollinator visitation. We measured fruit set in a natural population and recorded pollinator abundance and foraging behaviour within plots of different O. militaris densities. Detailed data were recorded for the most abundant potential pollinators of O. militaris, i.e. solitary bees. Floral display size was negatively correlated to fruit set in medium‐density plots, but uncorrelated in low‐ and high‐density plots. Plot density had no effect on solitary bee abundance and visitation, which may be due to low pollinator abundance within the study site. The proportion of visited flowers per inflorescence was negatively influenced by floral display size, which is in line with previous studies. In addition, solitary bees spent decreasing time in successive flowers within an inflorescence, and the time spent per flower was negatively affected by ambient temperature. Our results suggest that pollinator behaviour during visitation is poorly linked to pollen deposition and reproductive success in O. militaris.     

Visual signalling of nectar‐offering flowers and specific morphological traits favour robust bee pollinators in the mass‐flowering tree Handroanthus impetiginosus (Bignoniaceae)

Mass flowering is a widespread blooming strategy among Neotropical trees that has been frequently suggested to increase geitonogamous pollination. We investigated the pollination ecology of the mass‐flowering tree Handroanthus impetiginosus, addressing its breeding system, the role in pollination of different visitors, the impact of nectar robbers on fruit set and the function of colour changes in nectar guides. This xenogamous species is mainly pollinated by Centris and Euglossa bees (Apidae) seeking nectar, which are known to fly long distances. The flowers favour these bees by having: (1) a closed entrance in newly opened flowers which provides access only to strong bees capable of deforming the flower tube; and (2) a nectar chamber that is accessible only to long‐tongued bees. Only first‐day flowers with yellow nectar guides produce nectar. Pollinators prefer these flowers over second‐ and third‐day flowers with orange and red nectar guides, respectively. Nectar robbers damage two‐thirds of the flowers and this robbing activity decreases fruit set by half. We attribute the low fruit set of H. impetiginosus to the intense nectar robbing and hypothesize that visual signalling of nectar presence in newly opened (receptive) flowers reduces geitonogamy by minimizing bee visits to unrewarding (non‐receptive) flowers. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2014, 176 , 396–407.     

Bees and flowers: How to feed an invasive beetle species

Invasive species may exploit a wide range of food sources, thereby fostering their success and hampering mitigation, but the actual degree of opportunism is often unknown. The small hive beetle (SHB), Aethina tumida, is a parasite of honeybee colonies endemic to sub‐Saharan Africa. SHBs have now spread on all habitable continents and can also infest colonies of other social bees. To date, the possible role of solitary bee nests as alternative hosts is unknown. Similarly, flowers as possible alternative food sources are not well understood. Here, we show that SHBs can complete an entire life cycle in association with nests of solitary bees Megachile rotundata. The data also show that flowers can serve as alternative food sources. These results support the opportunistic nature of this invasive species, thereby generating further obstacles for mitigation efforts in the field. It also suggests that SHB invasions may result in more serious consequences for endemic bee fauna than previously thought. This provides further motivation to slow down the global spread of this pest, and to improve its management in areas, where it is established.     

The pollination efficiency of a pollinator depends on its foraging strategy,flowering phenology,and the flower characteristics of a plant species

Honey bees and stingless bees are generalist visitors of several wild and cultivated plants. They forage with a high degree of floral fidelity and thereby help in the pollination services of those plants. We hypothesized that pollination efficiency might be influenced by flowering phenology, floral characteristics, and resource collection modes of the worker bees. In this paper, we surveyed the foraging strategies of honey bees (Apis cerana, Apis dorsata, and Apis florea) and stingless bees (Tetragonula iridipennis) concerning their pollination efficiencies. Bees showed different resource gathering strategies, including legitimate (helping in pollination as mixed foragers and specialized foragers) and illegitimate (serving as nectar robbers and pollen thieves) types of flower visitation patterns. Foraging strategies are influenced by the shape of flowers, the timing of the visitation, floral richness, and bee species. Honey bees and stingless bees mainly acted as legitimate visitors in most plants studied. Sometimes honey bees served as nectar robbers in tubular flowers and stingless bees as pollen thieves in large-sized flowers. Among the legitimate categories, mixed foragers have a comparatively lower flower visitation rate than the specialized nectar and pollen foragers. However, mixed foragers have greater abundance and higher values of the single-visit pollination efficiency index (PEi) than nectar and pollen foragers. The value of the combined parameter ‘importance in pollination (PI)’ was thus higher in mixed foragers than in nectar and pollen foragers.     

Solitary and social bees as pollinators of Wahlenbergia (Campanulaceae): single-visit effectiveness, overnight sheltering and responses to flower colour

Solitary bees often form specialised mutualisms with particular plant species, while honeybees are considered to be relatively opportunistic foragers. Thus, it may be expected that solitary bees are more effective pollinators than honeybees when foraging on the same floral resource. To test this, we studied two Wahlenbergia species (Campanulaceae) in South Africa that are visited by both social honeybees and solitary bees, and which are shown here to be genetically self-incompatible and thus reliant on pollinator visits for seed production. Contrary to expectation, the solitary bee Lipotriches sp. (Halictidae) and social bee Apis mellifera (Apidae), which were the two most frequent visitors to flowers of the study species, were equally effective pollinators in terms of the consequences of single visits for fruit and seed set. Both bee species preferentially visited female phase flowers, which contain more nectar than male phase flowers. Male solitary bees of several genera frequently shelter overnight in flowers of both Wahlenbergia species, but temporal exclusion experiments showed that this behaviour makes little contribution to either seed production or pollen dispersal (estimated using a dye particle analogue). Manipulation of flower colour using a sunscreen that removed UV reflectance strongly reduced visits by both bee groups, while neither group responded to Wahlenbergia floral odour cues in choice tests. This study indicates that while flowers of Wahlenbergia cuspidata and W. krebsii are pollinated exclusively by bees, they are not under strong selection to specialise for pollination by any particular group of bees.     

Pollination of Oncocyclus irises (Iris: Iridaceae) by night-sheltering male bees

Irises in the section Oncocyclus (Siems.) Baker ( IRIS: Iridaceae) grow throughout the Middle East and have large and dark-coloured flowers but no nectar reward available to flower visitors. Consequently, no reward-collecting pollinators have been observed visiting the flowers during daytime. The only visitors are solitary male bees ( Eucera spp.: Apidae) that enter the flowers at dusk and stay there overnight. Here we describe the mating system of Oncocyclus irises, and the role of night-sheltering male bees in their pollination system. Pollen viability in I. haynei on Mt. Gilboa was very high (>90%) throughout all floral life stages. Stigmas were receptive in buds and in open flowers, but not in older ones. Self-pollination yielded no fruits in three species, confirming complete self-incompatibility in Oncocyclus irises. On average, 1.9 flowers were visited by each male bee before it settled for the night in the last one. Moreover, Iris pollen was present on the dorsal side of 38.8% of males caught sheltering in flower models mounted near an I. atrofusca population, indicating that pollen is transferred between flowers by night-sheltering solitary male bees. We have surveyed 13 flowering populations of six Oncocyclus species for the presence of night-sheltering male bees as well as for fruit set. We found a positive correlation, indicating that sexual reproduction in Oncocyclus irises is dependent on night-sheltering solitary male bees. Based on their complete self-incompatibility, the absence of nectar-collecting visitors during the day, and the transfer of pollen grains by the night-sheltering solitary male bees, we conclude that fertilization of Oncocyclus irises is totally dependent on pollination by night-sheltering solitary male bees.     

Amygdalin in almond nectar and pollen – facts and possible roles

 Nectar and pollen within flowers are usually the primary attractants to floral visitors. Chemical analysis of almond nectar and pollen in this study revealed that they contain the secondary compound amygdalin. Floral display often reflects pollinator characters, and almond flowers are accordingly designated as “bee flowers”. A previous study in Israel showed that when almonds bloom early in the season they attract honeybees, but later in the season the bees shift toward other species that start blooming. In this study, we offered honeybees sugar solutions containing various concentrations of amygdalin. These preference experiments revealed that in mid-summer bees were not selective, whereas early in the summer they were more discriminating, and consumed faster the sugar solutions with the lower amygdalin concentrations. Possible roles of amygdalin in almond nectar and pollen are discussed. Received September 10, 2002; accepted January 17, 2003 Published online: June 2, 2003