Aechmea pectinata: a hummingbird-dependent bromeliad with inconspicuous flowers from the rainforest in south-eastern Brazil

The pollination biology of Aechmea pectinata (Bromeliaceae) was studied in a submontane rainforest in south-eastern Brazil. This species has a mainly clumped distribution and its aggregated individuals are likely to be clones. From October to January, during the flowering period, the distal third of its leaves becomes red. The inflorescence produces 1-15 flowers per day over a period of 20-25 d. The flowers are inconspicuous, greenish-white coloured, tubular shaped with a narrow opening, and the stigma is situated just above the anthers. Anthesis begins at 0400 h and flowers last for about 13 h. The highest nectar volume and sugar concentration occur between 0600 and 1000 h, and decrease throughout the day. Aechmea pectinata is self-incompatible and therefore pollinator-dependent. Hummingbirds are its main pollinators (about 90 % of the visits), visiting flowers mainly in the morning. There is a positive correlation between the number of hummingbird visits per inflorescence and the production of nectar, suggesting that the availability of this resource is important in attracting and maintaining visitors. The arrangement of the floral structures favours pollen deposition on the bill of the hummingbirds. Flowers in clumps promote hummingbird territoriality, and a consequence is self-pollination in a broader sense (geitonogamy) as individuals in assemblages are genetically close. However, trap-lining and intruding hummingbirds promote cross-pollination. These observations suggest that successful fruit set of A. pectinata depends on both the spatial distribution of its individuals and the interactions among hummingbirds.     

The effect of hummingbird flower mites on nectar availability of two sympatric Heliconia species in a Brazilian Atlantic forest

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hummingbird flower mites feed and reproduce in flowers of host plants pollinated by hummingbirds, and use the nostrils and bill of the hummingbird to move from plant to plant. These mites compete with the pollinator for the nectar produced by flowers. An investigation was made of the relationship between the pattern of nectar production and the effects of hummingbird flower mites in the flowers of two sympatric species of Heliconia (Heliconiaceae). METHODS: Nectar production was sampled by carrying out two experiments: 2-hour intervals and accumulated nectar. Flowers with and without mites were used in both experiments. KEY RESULTS: Exclusion of mites increased nectar production, especially in accumulated daily production (a maximum of 49 % more nectar). Both Heliconia species had the same pattern of nectar production: a high concentration in the morning, which was progressively reduced as the day passed. This pattern of nectar production coincides with the behaviour of the pollinator, which makes more frequent visits in the morning, as observed in a previous study. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the impact of mites on nectar availability of Heliconia is more important with regard to total volume of nectar produced irrespective of flower longevity. A high variation among individuals in nectar produced in the populations was also observed. Hummingbird flower mites strongly affect availability of nectar for hummingbirds.     

Nectar secretion dynamic links pollinator behavior to consequences for plant reproductive success in the ornithophilous mistletoe Psittacanthus robustus

The mistletoe Psittacanthus robustus was studied as a model to link flower phenology and nectar secretion strategy to pollinator behaviour and the reproductive consequences for the plant. The bright‐coloured flowers presented diurnal anthesis, opened asynchronously throughout the rainy season and produced copious dilute nectar as the main reward for pollinators. Most nectar was secreted just after flower opening, with little sugar replenishment after experimental removals. During the second day of anthesis in bagged flowers, the flowers quickly reabsorbed the offered nectar. Low values of nectar standing crop recorded in open flowers can be linked with high visitation rates by bird pollinators. Eight hummingbirds and two passerines were observed as potential pollinators. The most frequent flower visitors were the hummingbirds Eupetomena macroura and Colibri serrirostris, which actively defended flowering mistletoes. The spatial separation between anthers, stigma and nectar chamber promotes pollen deposition on flapping wings of hovering hummingbirds that usually probe many flowers per visit. Seed set did not differ between hand‐, self‐ and cross‐pollinated flowers, but these treatments set significantly more seeds than flowers naturally exposed to flower visitors. We suggest that the limitation observed in the reproductive success of this plant is not related to pollinator scarcity, but probably to the extreme frequency of visitation by territorial hummingbirds. We conclude that the costs and benefits of plant reproduction depend on the interaction strength between flowers and pollinators, and the assessment of nectar secretion dynamics, pollinator behaviour and plant breeding system allows clarification of the complexity of such associations.     

Risk‐averse inflorescence departure in hummingbirds and bumble bees: could plants benefit from variable nectar volumes?

Most hermaphroditic, many-flowered plants should suffer reduced fitness from within-plant selfing (geitonogamy). Large inflorescences are most attractive to pollinators, but also promote many flower visits during a single plant visit, which may increase selfing and decrease pollen export. A plant might avoid the negative consequences of attractiveness through modification of the floral display to promote fewer flower visits, while retaining attractiveness. This report shows that increasing only the variance in nectar volume per flower results in fewer flower visits per inflorescence by wild hummingbirds ( Selasphorus rufus ) and captive bumble bees ( Bombus flavifrons ) foraging on artificial inflorescences. Inflorescences were either constant (all flowers contained the same nectar volume) or variable (half the flowers were empty, the other half contained twice as much nectar as in the constant flowers). Both types of inflorescence were simultaneously available to foragers. Risk-averse foraging behaviour was expressed as a patch departure preference: birds and bees visited fewer flowers on variable inflorescences, and this preference was expressed when resource variability could be determined only by concurrent sampling. When variance treatments were clearly labelled with colour and offered to hummingbirds, the departure effect was maintained; however, when preference was measured by inflorescence choice, birds did not consistently prefer to visit constant inflorescences. The reduced visitation lengths on variable inflorescences by both birds and bees documented in this study imply that variance in nectar production rates within inflorescences may represent an adaptive trait to avoid the costs of geitonogamy.     

Hummingbird responses to gender-biased nectar production: are nectar biases maintained by natural or sexual selection?

Pollinators mediate the evolution of secondary floral traits through both natural and sexual selection. Gender-biased nectar, for example, could be maintained by one or both, depending on the interactions between plants and pollinators. Here, I investigate pollinator responses to gender-biased nectar using the dichogamous herb Chrysothemis friedrichsthaliana (Gesneriaceae) which produces more nectar during the male floral phase. Previous research showed that the hummingbird pollinator Phaethornis striigularis visited male-phase flowers more often than female-phase flowers, and multiple visits benefited male more than female fecundity. If sexual selection maintains male-biased rewards, hummingbirds should prefer more-rewarding flowers independent of floral gender. If, however, differential rewards are partially maintained through natural selection, hummingbirds should respond to asymmetry with visits that reduce geitonogamy, i.e. selfing and pollen discounting. In plants with male biases, these visit types include single-flower visits and movements from low to high rewards. To test these predictions, I manipulated nectar asymmetry between pairs of real or artificial flowers on plants and recorded foraging behaviour. I also assessed maternal costs of selfing using hand pollinations. For plants with real flowers, hummingbirds preferred more-rewarding flowers and male-phase morphology, the latter possibly owing to previous experience. At artificial arrays, hummingbirds responded to extreme reward asymmetry with increased single-flower visits; however, they moved from high to low rewards more often than low to high. Finally, selfed flowers did not produce inferior seeds. In summary, sexual selection, more so than geitonogamy avoidance, maintains nectar biases in C. friedrichsthaliana, in one of the clearest examples of sexual selection in plants, to date.     

海南三七（姜科）的食源性欺骗传粉

有花植物为繁殖成功,进化出各种各样的花部特征来吸引传粉者,如为传粉者提供花蜜、花粉、栖息地等,然而在33科146属的被子植物中也存在着不提供任何报酬而欺骗昆虫为其传粉的现象。这种欺骗性传粉模式主要出现在高度进化的具有多样化传粉模式的兰科植物中。报道了在姜科植物中首次发现的食源性欺骗传粉模式。对姜科山柰属海南三七进行连续2年的传粉生物学观察和研究发现,海南三七的花在早上5:30～6:00之间开放,下午17:00～18:00左右闭合萎蔫,持续大约11～12h。开花过程中花粉活性与柱头可受性均保持较高水平(>90%)。花粉/胚珠比率(P/O)为82.20±47.89(n=20)。木蜂是其主要的访花和传粉昆虫,访花目的是吸取花蜜。海南三七虽有细长线形的蜜腺,但并不分泌花蜜作为传粉昆虫访花的报酬,采用食源性欺骗的方式欺骗木蜂为其传粉。繁育系统的研究表明广西弄化的海南三七居群主要是通过根茎进行无性繁殖。     

Competition between hummingbirds and bumble bees for nectar in flowers of Impatiens biflora

Summary Using removal experiments and concurrent measurement of resource levels, evidence was obtained for exploitation competition between Ruby-throated hummingbirds and two bumble bee species (Bombus fervidus and B. vagans) foraging for nectar on Impatiens biflora.When all three species were active, flower visitors showed a complex pattern of resource partitioning involving both diel and spatial changes. Hummingbirds foraged almost exclusively from the outermost exposed flowers on plants from which they drained nectar levels beyond the reach of bees over most of the day. In contrast the longtongued bee species (B. fervidus), and the shorter-tongued B. vagans, displayed a preference for the innermost flowers on plants which were protected from hummingbird visitation by surrounding vegetation. The two Bombus spp. began foraging at different times during the day: B. vagans were most active in early morning but were replaced by B. fervidus later in the day.When hummingbirds were rare, only B. fervidus showed evidence of competitive release: an increase in the number of foragers and a broadening of flower choice to include more outer flowers. Workers of B. vagans showed a similar response to temporary removal of B. fervidus and also extended their foraging over the entire day. These responses were consistent with changes in the availability of nectar to different species.Removal experiments demonstrated that individuals of one species can be largely excluded from access to nectar resources as a direct result of exploitation of nectar by foragers of other species with longer tongues. Thus in this system interspecific exploitation is an important mechanism involved in resource partitioning.     

Pollination Ecology and Effect of Nectar Removal in Macleania bullata (Ericaceae)1

The floral syndrome of Macleania bullataYeo (Ericaceae) reflects its adaptation to hummingbird pollination. Its flowers, however, are subject to high levels of nectar robbing. I examined the floral visitor assemblage of M. bullata in a tropical montane wet forest in southwestern Colombia, focusing on the behavior of the visitors. I also tested for the presence of nocturnal pollination and the effects of nectar removal on new nectar production. The principal floral visitors were the nectar robbing hummingbirds Ocreatus underwoodii (19.1% of visits) and Chlorostilbon mellisugus (18.9%). Only two species of long–billed hummingbirds visited the flowers of M. bullata as “legitimate” pollinators: Coeligena torquata (14.7% of visits) and Doryfera ludoviciae (14.3%). The remaining visits constituted nectar robbing by bees, butterflies, and other species of hummingbirds. Nocturnal pollination took place, although fruit set levels were 2.4 times higher when only diurnal pollination was allowed as opposed to exclusively nocturnal pollination. Nectar robbers removed floral nectar without pollinating the flower. Treatments of experimental nectar removal were carried out to examine if flowers synthesize more nectar after nectar removal. Nectar removal increased the total volume of nectar produced by each flower without affecting sugar concentration. Thus, nectar robbing can impose a high cost to the plants by forcing them to replace lost nectar.     

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.     

Consequences of differences in body mass,wing length and leg morphology for nectar-feeding birds

Nectar-feeding birds are prominent in many parts of the world, and vary with respect to body size. Despite the availability of considerable morphometric data, few concerted efforts have been made to assess the influence of attributes such as mass, wing length and leg morphology upon the speed, acceleration, mode and energetic cost of movement by birds between flowers when foraging for nectar. This review attempts to consolidate and interpret available data and highlight areas where further investigations appear warranted. Australian honeyeaters are generally larger, and American hummingbirds smaller, than Hawaiian honeycreepers and sunbirds of Africa or Asia. Sunbirds, honeyeaters and honeycreepers generally perch while extracting nectar from flowers. Hummingbirds usually hover, apparently because suitable perches close to flowers are lacking, and not because hovering increases the speed at which flowers can be visited. Honeyeaters move from one flower to another at speeds that are at least as great as those for hummingbirds. Most passerine nectarivores need to ingest more nectar per day than hummingbirds in order to maintain energy balance, some species devoting more than 60% of the day to foraging. The major consequence of reduced foraging activity by hummingbirds, which spend only 5–30% of the day in this manner, appears to be male emancipation from nest construction and care of offspring. Large nectarivores have a greater capacity to store surplus food and to fast than smaller birds, and so can take advantage of short-lived peaks in nectar abundance. Nectarivores such as honeyeaters should therefore be favoured by the rapid diurnal changes in nectar availability which are characteristic of many Australian and African habitats. Body mass also determines the likely access to rich sources of nectar through size-related interspecific dominance hierarchies. In all families, larger species tend to monopolize the most rewarding nectar supplies, forcing smaller subordinate species to use poorer, more scattered sources. Within particular species, males usually have longer wings and greater masses than females. These variations imply that the two sexes differ with regard to their foraging ecology, although few supporting data are currently available.     

Bees provide pollination service to Campsis radicans (Bignoniaceae), a primarily ornithophilous trumpet flowering vine

1. Pollination syndromes refer to stereotyped floral characteristics (flower colour, shape, etc.) that are associated with a functional group of pollinators (bee, bird, etc.).
2. The trumpet creeper Campsis radicans, endemic to the southeast and mid‐west United States, has been assigned to the hummingbird‐pollination syndrome, due mainly to its red, trumpet‐shaped flowers.
3. Previous studies demonstrated that the ruby‐throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris is C. radicans' primary pollinator, but anecdotal data suggest various bee species may provide pollination service when hummingbirds are absent.
4. This study characterised C. radicans nectar volume and concentration by time of day. Nectar volume was suitable for hummingbirds, but concentration was higher than typical hummingbird‐pollinated plants (～20% w/w); at ～30% w/w, it approached the concentration expected in bee‐pollinated plants (～50% w/w). We also found substantial amounts of nectar at night.
5. Two C. radicans populations received virtually no hummingbird visits, but the number of bees were markedly higher than in the populations previously described. Interestingly, there were no night‐time visitors despite the large quantity of nocturnal nectar.
6. Based on previously published pollen delivery per visit by various species, this study estimated that cumulative deposition by bees routinely reached pollen deposition thresholds for setting fruit in C. radicans. They are, unequivocally, the predominant pollinators in these populations, thus providing pollination service in the absence of hummingbirds.
7. These results highlight C. radicans as a food source for native bees and add to the understanding of how floral phenotypes can facilitate pollination by disparate functional groups.

     

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.     

Pollen transfer by hummingbirds and bumblebees, and the divergence of pollination modes in Penstemon

We compared pollen removal and deposition by hummingbirds and bumblebees visiting bird-syndrome Penstemon barbatus and bee-syndrome P. strictus flowers. One model for evolutionary shifts from bee pollination to bird pollination has assumed that, mostly due to grooming, pollen on bee bodies quickly becomes unavailable for transfer to stigmas, whereas pollen on hummingbirds has greater carryover. Comparing bumblebees and hummingbirds seeking nectar in P. strictus, we confirmed that bees had a steeper pollen carryover curve than birds but, surprisingly, bees and birds removed similar amounts of pollen and had similar per-visit pollen transfer efficiencies. Comparing P. barbatus and P. strictus visited by hummingbirds, the bird-syndrome flowers had more pollen removed, more pollen deposited, and a higher transfer efficiency than the bee-syndrome flowers. In addition, P. barbatus flowers have evolved such that their anthers and stigmas would not easily come into contact with bumblebees if they were to forage on them. We discuss the role that differences in pollination efficiency between bees and hummingbirds may have played in the repeated evolution of hummingbird pollination in Penstemon.     

Energy regulation by traplining hummingbirds

1. A published model of constant diurnal energy accumulation by territorial hummingbirds does not accurately reflect the temporal distribution of feeding behaviour of traplining hummingbirds, Phaethornis longirostris (Long-Tailed Hermit Hummingbirds).
2. In an enclosure study, gross nectar intake by P . longirostris decreased through the day, mirroring nectar production rates in its natural food-flowers and mimicking its natural foraging patterns.
3. Using a simulation model, the energetic consequences of constant and decreasing net energy intake rates for traplining hummingbirds are compared.
4. Given natural patterns of nectar production, model birds with decreasing diurnal net intake rates met their energetic needs with fewer flowers than those with constant net intake, and spent less time foraging.
5. It is concluded that P . longirostris do not satisfy the physiological assumptions of the published model, and that in this way they are different from the territorial species on which the model has previously been tested.     

The foraging behaviour of Australian honeyeaters: a review and some comparisons with hummingbirds

The foraging behaviour of Australian honeyeaters is reviewed in terms of diet, foraging selectivity, foraging flight mode, quality and quantity of nectar encountered per flower, flower densities encountered and effect of predation. At the same time comparisons are made between honeyeaters and hummingbirds. These two groups of birds are superficially similar. Both feed on nectar and insects. Both tend to have long curved bills and tongues adapted for removal of nectar from flowers. Both tend to feed at long, red flowers. However, on close inspection, honeyeaters and hummingbirds are quite dissimilar. For example, many honeyeaters include fruit in their diets. Hummingbirds almost never eat fruit. Honeyeaters appear to be considerably less nectarivorous and more insectivorous than hummingbirds. Honeyeaters are, for the most part, larger than hummingbirds and they usually perch while feeding whereas hummingbirds usually hover. Honeyeaters but not hummingbirds often flock while feeding. Predation appears to be considerably more important for honeyeaters than for hummingbirds. Territorial defense of flowers seems common in hummingbirds but uncommon in honeyeaters. These differences are discussed in detail and explanations are offered for them wherever possible.     

西方蜜蜂和兰州熊蜂在设施桃园的访花偏好性比较

【目的】为了比较西方蜜蜂 Apis mellifera 和兰州熊蜂 Bombus lantschouensis 在设施桃园内对不同时期桃花的访花偏好性、以及这种偏好性与花粉活力和采集花粉花蜜之间的关系。【方法】记录2种蜂在温室桃园内访问早期花、中期花和晚期花的比例,测定桃花不同时期的花粉活力以及2种蜂携带的花粉活力,观察2种蜂采集花蜜和采集花粉的成功率,统计2种蜂访花过程中桃花所处的枝条数及植株数。【结果】桃花不同时期的花粉活力差异显著,早期花花药未开裂,花粉未释放,中期花花粉活力（58.3%）显著高于晚期花花粉活力（34.2%）（P<0.01）;西方蜜蜂更加偏好访问中期花,对中期花的访问率高达75.3%,显著高于兰州熊蜂对中期花的访问率（49.2%）（P<0.01）;西方蜜蜂携带的花粉活力（92.1%）显著高于兰州熊蜂携带的花粉活力（72.9%）,但是西方蜜蜂采集花粉和采集花蜜的成功率均低于兰州熊蜂（P<0.01）;在访问一定数量的桃花过程中,兰州熊蜂在设施桃园内访问的枝条数和植株数较多,分布范围较广（P<0.01）。【结论】和兰州熊蜂相比,西方蜜蜂对活力花粉的辨别能力更强,更加偏好访问花粉活力较高的花朵,这种偏好性导致其采集花粉花蜜的成功率降低。     

Territoriality and changes in resource use by sunbirds at Leonotis leonurus (Labiatae)

Summary Leonotis leonurus was studied with the aim of characterising nectar quality and quantity, and of monitoring the sunbirds' response to the resource. The flowers produced high quality nectar in low quantities. Nectar quality remained constant during the day and averaged 23.4% sucrose equivalents (an energy content of 3.8j/l). Nectar production was highest during the morning when flow rates reached a peak of 3.3 l/h. L. leonurus was visited by four species of sunbirds. In 1977 there were 7.8 visits/h to the flowers. The clump was defended by a single Olive Sunbird (Nectarinia olivacea) who defended the flowers intra- and interspecifically. On one day the territorial bird obtained approximately 57.1 kJ from the Leonotis flowers and expended 5.4 kJ on defence and 13.6 kJ overall while on the territory. Territorial behaviour and intruder pressure was a function of resource availability. When Leonotis nectar levels were high intruder pressure was intense and the territorial bird employed long chases as a defence behaviour. When nectar levels desreased intruder pressure was lower, the territorial bird chased less and employed vocalisations as a relatively inexpensive form of territorial behaviour.In 1978 there was an abundance of nectar sources in the study area due to the late onset of the dry season. Sunbirds were not territorial at Leonotis and visiting rates were lower than in 1977, averaging only 1.7 visits per hour. Instead the sunbirds concentrated on contemporaneously flowering plant species, particularly Halleria lucida.     

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.     

Effect of nectar composition and nectar concentration on honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) visitations to hybrid onion flowers

Floral nectar characteristics of nine inbred lines of onion (Allium cepa L.) were examined to determine their influence on the attractiveness of the onion flowers to honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Potassium concentrations and sugar concentrations of the nectar did not significantly correlate with the number of bee visits received by an umbel. The average amount of nectar produced by both the umbels and the individual florets was significantly positively correlated with the number of bee visits. Our results suggest that selection for flowers with high nectar production may lead to a higher rate of pollination of the onion seed crop.     

Reproductive biology and effect of nectar robbing on fruit production in Macleania bullata (Ericaceae)

Hummingbird-pollinated flowers are frequently subjected to nectar robbing. In this paper, I examine the impact of nectar robbing on plant reproductive success on a hummingbird-pollinated species. After studying the basic aspects of the floral morphology and reproduction of Macleania bullata (Ericaceae) in a tropical montane wet forest in southwest Colombia, I examined the percent of flowers robbed and the effect of nectar robbery on fruit set. The flowers of this species are typical for plants pollinated by long-bill hummingbirds. They are protandrous and open for four days. Fruit production requires a pollinator visit; fruit set following pollinator exclusion was zero. Fruit set following xenogamous pollen transfer (36.8%) differed significantly from that of population controls (11.9%) and of autogamous pollen transfer (6.3%). Nectar volume, sugar concentration and sugar production were measured at daily intervals from bud opening until the fading of flowers. Daily nectar production (both volume and amount of sugar) varied considerably with flower age. Sugar production peaked on the second day, coinciding with the male phase. The frequency of nectar robbing in the studied population was very high (75% of examined flowers) and was positively correlated with reduced fruit set. I discuss the probability of a relation between reduced fruit set on robbed flowers and an energetic investment. Robbing by non-pollinating visitors can suppose the plant to re-synthesize more nectar. The high incidence of nectar robbing impugns the advantage of specialization.