Floral Sonication is an Innate Behaviour in Bumblebees that can be Fine-Tuned with Experience in Manipulating Flowers

Bumblebees demonstrate an extensive capacity for learning complex motor skills to maximise exploitation of floral rewards. This ability is well studied in nectar collection but its role in pollen foraging is less well understood. Floral sonication is used by bees to extract pollen from some plant species with anthers which must be vibrated (buzzed) to release pollen. Pollen removal is determined by sonication characteristics including frequency and amplitude, and thus the ability to optimise sonication should allow bees to maximise the pollen collection. We investigated the ability of the buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) to modify the frequency and amplitude of their buzzes with increasing experience manipulating flowers of the buzz-pollinated plant Solanum rostratum. We analysed flight and feeding vibrations generated by naïve workers across feeding bouts. Feeding buzzes were of a higher frequency and a lower amplitude than flight buzzes. Both flight and feeding buzzes had reduced amplitudes with increasing number of foraging trips. However, the frequency of their feeding buzzes was reduced significantly more than their flight buzzes as bumblebee workers gained experience manipulating flowers. These results suggest that bumblebees are able to modify the characteristics of their buzzes with experience manipulating buzz-pollinated flowers. We discuss our findings in the context of bumblebee learning, and the current understanding of the optimal sonication characteristics for releasing pollen in buzz-pollinated species. Our results present a tantalising insight into the potential role of learning in floral sonication, paving the way for future research in this area.     

Effectiveness of buzz pollination in Pedicularis chamissonis: significance of multiple visits by bumblebees

Pollination success of plants is highly susceptible to the frequency of visits and foraging behavior of pollinators. Pollination of the nectarless flowers of Pedicularis species depends on bumblebee workers collecting pollen by vibrating the anthers (buzz pollination). However, little is known about the efficiency of the pollination system. Foraging behavior, pollen removal from anthers and pollen deposition on stigmas of P. chamissonis were studied to assess the effectiveness of buzz pollination in an alpine snowbed population of northern Japan. Although bumblebees tended to visit most of the flowers open at a given time within inflorescences during a single visit, pollen removal rate at the first visit was about 20%, and buzzing period decreased with increasing number of previous visits, resulting in a decreasing proportion of pollen removed per visit as the number of visits increased. These trends enable plants to provide pollen for more pollinators. The number of pollen grains deposited on stigmas was not saturated during the first visit and increased with additional visits. Irrespective of weak self-compatibility, evidence of interference between self and outcross pollen was lacking for seed production. Therefore, buzz pollination in P. chamissonis acts as a mechanism that improves the chance of cross-pollination upon multiple visits if pollinator visitation is frequent.     

Buzz-pollination in Neotropical bees:genus-dependent frequencies and lack of optimal frequency for pollen release

Over 50 genera of bees release pollen from flower anthers using thoracic vibrations,a phenomenon known as buzz-pollination.The efficiency of this process is directly affected by the mechanical properties of the buzzes,namely the duration,amplitude,and frequency.Nonetheless,although the effects of the former two properties are well described,the role of buzz frequency on pollen release remains unclear.Furthermore,nearly all of the existing studies describing vibrational properties of natural buzz-pollination are limited to bumblebees(Bombus)and carpenter bees(Xvlocopa)constraining our current understanding of this behavior and its evolution.Therefore,we attempted to minimize this shortcoming by testing whether flower anthers exhibit optimal frequency for pollen release and whether bees tune their buzzes to match these(optimal)frequencies.If true,certain frequencies will trigger more pollen release and lighter bees will reach buzz frequencies closer to this optimum to compensate their smaller buzz amplitudes.Two strategies were used to test these hypotheses:(i)the use of(artificial)vibrational playbacks in a broad range of buzz frequencies and amplitudes to assess pollen release by tomato plants(Solarium Ivcopersicum L.)and(ii)the recording of natural buzzes of Neotropical bees visiting tomato plants during pollination.The playback experiment indicates that although buzz frequency does affect pollen release,no optimal frequency exists for that.In addition,the recorded results of natural buzz-pollination reveal that buzz frequencies vary with bee genera and are not correlated with body size.Therefore,neither bees nor plants are tuned to optimal pollen release frequencies.Bee frequency of buzz-pollination is a likely consequence of the insect flight machinery adapted to reach higher accelerations,while flower plant response to buzz-pollination is the likely result of its pollen granular properties.     

Anther and stigma morphology in mirror-image flowers of Chamaecrista chamaecristoides (Fabaceae): implications for buzz pollination

Enantiostyly (mirror-image flowers) is usually associated with buzz pollination. In buzz-pollinated flowers, pollen is released through terminal pores after bees vibrate the stamens. Several studies have evaluated the function of 'buzzing' in pollen release, but less attention has been paid to the effect of buzzing on pollen capture and deposition on stigmas. Evaluating the mechanism of pollen dispersion in buzz-pollinated flowers is important because it may affect mating patterns and reproductive success. In this study, we analysed the morphology of sexual organs (anther and stigma) using electron microscopy, and determined the relationship between sexual organ structure and pollen capture function through experimental manipulations of buzz-pollinated flowers of Chamaecrista chamaecristoides, as well as vibration frequencies on floral visitors. Pollen release occurs through two terminal pores at the tip of the stamens. However, unlike most angiosperms that have their stigmatic surface exposed, C.?chamaecristoides presents a stigmatic surface inside a cavity covered by trichomes. Experimental manipulations showed that effective fertilisation is only achieved when the style is vibrated, suggesting that buzzing is not only important for pollen release but also for pollen capture and deposition on the stigma. This result, in addition to vibration frequency analysis, suggests that although all floral visitors buzz flowers only those that buzz at higher frequencies achieve effective fertilisation. The anatomical features of sexual organs in flowers of C.?chamaecristoides demonstrate that this species possesses a highly specialised, elaborate morphology, with both genders selected for traits that promote buzz pollination.     

Bees assess pollen returns while sonicating Solanum flowers

Summary Can bees accurately gauge accumulating bodily pollen as they harvest pollen from flowers? Several recent reports conclude that bees fail to assess pollen harvest rates when foraging for nectar and pollen. A native nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium Cavanilles) that is visited exclusively for pollen by both solitary and social bees (eg. Ptiloglossa and Bombus) was studied in SE Arizona and SW New Mexico. The flowers have no nectaries. Two experiments were deployed that eliminated pollen feedback to the bees by experimentally manipulating flowers prior to bee visits. The two methods were 1) plugging poricidal anthers with glue and 2) emptying anthers of pollen by vibration prior to bee visitation. Both experiments demonstrated that bees directly assess pollen harvest on a flower-by-flower basis, and significantly tailor their handling times, number of vibratile buzzes per flower and grooming bouts according to the ongoing harvest on a given flower. In comparison to experimental flowers, floral handling times were extended for both Bombus and Ptiloglossa on virgin flowers. Greater numbers of intrafloral buzzes and numbers of times bees groomed pollen and packed it into their scopae while still on the flower were also more frequent at virgin versus experimental flowers. Flowers with glued andreocia received uniformly brief visits from Bombus and Ptiloglossa with fewer sonications and virtually no bouts of grooming. Curtailed handling with few buzzes and grooms also characterized visits to our manually harvested flowers wherein pollen was artificially depleted. Sonicating bees respond positively to pollen-feedback while harvesting from individual flowers, and therefore we expect them to adjust their harvesting tempo according to the currency of available pollen (standing crop) within Solanum floral patches.     

Association of flower color with pollen reward may explain increased bumblebee visitation to the Scotch broom yellow morph

Given that pollinators usually visit flowers for hidden rewards, they need to rely on floral traits that indicate reward status (“honest signals”). However, the relationship between pollination, honest signals, and floral rewards is little documented in natural conditions. The Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) is an invasive shrub with polymorphism in the color of its flowers that can be yellow, orange, or red. In three areas dominated by the Scotch broom, we described the abundance of the floral morphs and estimated bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) visitation rate. We examined whether bumblebee visitation to the floral morphs was related to pollen reward. We collected flowers and classified their stamens according to their function: reward or pollen export. Then, we measured anther size and estimated pollen quantity. The yellow morph was more abundant and more visited by bumblebees than the orange and red morphs. The yellow flowers did indeed offer more pollen than the other morphs and this occurred only for rewarding anthers, suggesting that bumblebees could use yellow color as an honest signal to visit the most rewarding flowers. We discuss whether innate and/or learned preferences of bumblebees can explain why the yellow morph is more visited, pollinated, and abundant, while the other morphs are maintained at a lower frequency. This is one of the few field works that shows that variation in intra-specific floral traits is associated with variation in floral reward and pollinator visitation rate, helping to understand the foraging preferences of pollinators and the coexistence of floral morphs in nature.

Clinical trials registration: Not applicable.

     

Assessment of pollen reward and pollen availability in Solanum stramoniifolium and Solanum paniculatum for buzz‐pollinating carpenter bees

The two widespread tropical Solanum species S. paniculatum and S. stramoniifolium are highly dependent on the visits of large bees that pollinate the flowers while buzzing them. Both Solanum species do not offer nectar reward; the rewarding of bees is thus solely dependent on the availability of pollen. Flower visitors are unable to visually assess the amount of pollen, because the pollen is hidden in poricidal anthers. In this study we ask whether and how the amount of pollen determines the attractiveness of flowers for bees. The number of pollen grains in anthers of S. stramoniifolium was seven times higher than in S. paniculatum. By contrast, the handling time per five flowers for carpenter bees visiting S. paniculatum was 3.5 times shorter than of those visiting S. stramoniifolium. As a result foraging carpenter bees collected a similar number of pollen grains per unit time on flowers of both species. Experimental manipulation of pollen availability by gluing the anther pores showed that the carpenter bees were unable to detect the availability of pollen by means of chemical cues before landing and without buzzing. Our study shows that the efficiency of pollen collecting on S. paniculatum is based on large inflorescences with short between‐flower search times and short handling time of individual flowers, whereas that of S. stramoniifolium relies on a large amount of pollen per flower. Interestingly, large carpenter bees are able to adjust their foraging behaviour to drastically different strategies of pollen reward in otherwise very similar plant species.     

Virus Infection of Plants Alters Pollinator Preference: A Payback for Susceptible Hosts?

Plant volatiles play important roles in attraction of certain pollinators and in host location by herbivorous insects. Virus infection induces changes in plant volatile emission profiles, and this can make plants more attractive to insect herbivores, such as aphids, that act as viral vectors. However, it is unknown if virus-induced alterations in volatile production affect plant-pollinator interactions. We found that volatiles emitted by cucumber mosaic virus (CMV)-infected tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and Arabidopsis thaliana plants altered the foraging behaviour of bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Virus-induced quantitative and qualitative changes in blends of volatile organic compounds emitted by tomato plants were identified by gas chromatography-coupled mass spectrometry. Experiments with a CMV mutant unable to express the 2b RNA silencing suppressor protein and with Arabidopsis silencing mutants implicate microRNAs in regulating emission of pollinator-perceivable volatiles. In tomato, CMV infection made plants emit volatiles attractive to bumblebees. Bumblebees pollinate tomato by ‘buzzing’ (sonicating) the flowers, which releases pollen and enhances self-fertilization and seed production as well as pollen export. Without buzz-pollination, CMV infection decreased seed yield, but when flowers of mock-inoculated and CMV-infected plants were buzz-pollinated, the increased seed yield for CMV-infected plants was similar to that for mock-inoculated plants. Increased pollinator preference can potentially increase plant reproductive success in two ways: i) as female parents, by increasing the probability that ovules are fertilized; ii) as male parents, by increasing pollen export. Mathematical modeling suggested that over a wide range of conditions in the wild, these increases to the number of offspring of infected susceptible plants resulting from increased pollinator preference could outweigh underlying strong selection pressures favoring pathogen resistance, allowing genes for disease susceptibility to persist in plant populations. We speculate that enhanced pollinator service for infected individuals in wild plant populations might provide mutual benefits to the virus and its susceptible hosts.     

TRACKING POLLEN FLOW OF SOLANUM ROSTRATUM (SOLANACEAE) USING BACKSCATTER SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY AND X-RAY MICROANALYSIS

A technique using micronized metal powders was developed for both general labeling of pollen and marking of individual pollen grains. After labeling, pollen flow is analyzed by the use of backscatter scanning electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis. To test the efficiency and efficacy of the technique, we assessed differences in pollen distribution in Solanum rostratum, an enantiostylous species with dimorphic anthers which are putatively feeding and pollinating anthers. Pollen from each set of anthers was labeled using different micronized metal powders. We could not confirm the differentiation of functional anthers in S. rostratum. This technique provides an efficient and convenient method for tracking pollen movement within and between flowers, and anthers within a single blossom can be differentially marked.     

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.     

Reduced visitation to buzz‐pollinated Cyanella hyacinthoides in the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Many plant species have floral morphologies that restrict access to floral resources, such as pollen or nectar, and only a subset of floral visitors can perform the handling behaviors required to extract restricted resources. Due to the time and energy required to extract resources from morphologically complex flowers, these plant species potentially compete for pollinators with co‐flowering plants that have more easily accessible resources. A widespread floral mechanism restricting access to pollen is the presence of tubular anthers that open through small pores or slits (poricidal anthers). Some bees have evolved the capacity to remove pollen from poricidal anthers using vibrations, giving rise to the phenomenon of buzz‐pollination. These bee vibrations that are produced for pollen extraction are presumably energetically costly, and to date, few studies have investigated whether buzz‐pollinated flowers may be at a disadvantage when competing for pollinators’ attention with plant species that present unrestricted pollen resources. Here, we studied Cyanella hyacinthoides (Tecophilaeaceae), a geophyte with poricidal anthers in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, to assess how the composition and relative abundance of flowers with easily accessible pollen affect bee visitation to a buzz‐pollinated plant. We found that the number of pollinator species of C. hyacinthoides was not influenced by community composition. However, visitation rates to C. hyacinthoides were reduced when the relative abundances of flowers with more accessible resources were high. Visitation rates were strongly associated with petal color, showing that flower color is important in mediating these interactions. We conclude that buzz‐pollinated plants might be at a competitive disadvantage when many easily accessible pollen sources are available, particularly when competitor species share its floral signals.     

Does intraspecific size variation in bumblebees allow colonies to efficiently exploit different flowers?

Abstract.  1. It has long been known that foraging bumblebee workers vary greatly in size, within species, and within single nests. This phenomenon has not been adequately explained. Workers of their relatives within the Apidae exhibit much less size variation.
2. For the bumblebee Bombus terrestris size, as measured by thorax width, was found to correspond closely with tongue length, so that larger bees are equipped to feed from deeper flowers.
3. The mean size of worker bees attracted to flowers was found to differ between plant species, and larger bees with longer tongues tended to visit deeper flowers.
4. Finally, handling time depended on the match between corolla depth and tongue length: large bees were slower than small bees when handling shallow flowers, but quicker than small bees when handling deep flowers.
5. Size variation within bumblebees may be adaptive, since it enables the colony as a whole to efficiently exploit a range of different flowers. Possible explanations for the marked differences in size variation exhibited by bumblebees compared with Apis species and stingless bees (Meliponinae) are discussed.     

Bumblebees require visual pollen stimuli to initiate and multimodal stimuli to complete a full behavioral sequence in close‐range flower orientation

Flower visits are complex encounters, in which animals are attracted by floral signals, guided toward the site of the first physical contact with a flower, land, and finally take up floral rewards. At close range, signals of stamens and pollen play an important role to facilitate flower handling in bees, yet the pollen stimuli eliciting behavioral responses are poorly known. In this study, we test the response of flower‐naive bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) toward single and multimodal pollen stimuli as compared to natural dandelion pollen. As artificial pollen stimuli, we used the yellow flavonoid pigment quercetin, the scent compound eugenol, the amino acid proline, the monosaccharide glucose, and the texture of pollen‐grain‐sized glass pellets as a tactile stimulus. Three test stimuli, dandelion pollen, one out of various uni‐ and multimodal stimulus combinations, and a solvent control were presented simultaneously to individual bumblebees, whose response was recorded. The results indicate that bumblebees respond in an irreversible sequence of behavioral reactions. Bumblebees approached the visual stimulus quercetin as often as natural dandelion pollen. An additional olfactory stimulus resulted in slightly more frequent landings. The multimodal stimulus combinations including visual, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile stimuli elicited approaches, antennal contacts, and landings as often as natural pollen. Subsequent reactions like proboscis extension, mandible biting, and buzzing were more often but not regularly observed at dandelion pollen. Our study shows that visual signals of pollen are sufficient to trigger initial responses of bumblebees, whereas multimodal pollen stimuli elicit full behavioral response as compared to natural pollen. Our results suggest a major role of pollen cues for the attraction of bees toward flowers and also explain, why many floral guides mimic the visual signals of pollen and anthers, that is, the yellow and UV‐absorbing color, to direct bumblebees toward the site where they access the floral rewards.     

Division of labor of anthers in heterantherous plants: flexibility of bee pollen collection behavior may serve to keep plants honest

Heteranthery is thought to reflect a division of labor, with some anthers serving a pollinator-feeding function and others serving a pollinating function. Mutualism theory predicts that each participant should try to maximize the benefit it receives from its partner: plants should allocate more pollen to pollination, and pollinators should collect more pollen. Accordingly, plant and pollinator may engage in a ‘tug of war’ with respect to pollen from each anther type, resulting in incomplete division of labor. Here, we explored this idea by conducting a fully factorial manipulation of the availability of pollen in long and short anthers of staminate flowers of Solanum houstonii. We found the following: (1) Bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) preferred to sonicate (collect pollen from) short anthers over long anthers, consistent with a role as feeding and pollinating anthers, respectively; (2) Blocking short anther pores alone increased sonication of long anthers and resulted in collection of pollen from long anthers; (3) Blocking long anther pores alone did not influence sonication of short anthers; (4) The increase in sonication of long anthers, when short anther pores are blocked, was greater when pollen was available in long anthers; (5) Despite shifting sonication effort to long anthers, bees do not move their bodies closer to long anther pores where pollen could be collected more effectively; and (6) analysis of the growth of corbicular loads over time spent buzzing indicates that significant amounts of pollen are collected from long anthers as well as short anthers. We conclude that bees can flexibly increase pollen collection from pollinating anthers, but are constrained from fully exploiting this pollen. This results in checks and balances between plant and bee that may help maintain heteranthery.     

Foraging errors play a role in resource exploration by bumble bees (Bombus terrrestris)

If the cognitive performance of animals reflects their particular ecological requirements, how can we explain appreciable variation in learning ability amongst closely related individuals (e.g. foraging workers within a bumble bee colony)? One possibility is that apparent ‘errors’ in a learning task actually represent an alternative foraging strategy. In this study we investigate the potential relationship between foraging ‘errors’ and foraging success among bumble bee (Bombus terrestris) workers. Individual foragers were trained to choose yellow, rewarded flowers and ignore blue, unrewarded flowers. We recorded the number of errors (visits to unrewarded flowers) each bee made during training, then tested them to determine how quickly they discovered a more profitable food source (either familiar blue flowers, or novel green flowers). We found that error prone bees discovered the novel food source significantly faster than accurate bees. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the time taken to discover the novel, more profitable, food source is positively correlated with foraging success. These results suggest that foraging errors are part of an ‘exploration’ foraging strategy, which could be advantageous in changeable foraging environments. This could explain the observed variation in learning performance amongst foragers within social insect colonies.     

Does the morphological fit between flowers and pollinators affect pollen deposition? An experimental test in a buzz‐pollinated species with anther dimorphism

Some pollination systems, such as buzz‐pollination, are associated with floral morphologies that require a close physical interaction between floral sexual organs and insect visitors. In these systems, a pollinator's size relative to the flower may be an important feature determining whether the visitor touches both male and female sexual organs and thus transfers pollen between plants efficiently. To date, few studies have addressed whether in fact the “fit” between flower and pollinator influences pollen transfer, particularly among buzz‐pollinated species. Here we use Solanum rostratum, a buzz‐pollinated plant with dimorphic anthers and mirror‐image flowers, to investigate whether the morphological fit between the pollinator's body and floral morphology influences pollen deposition. We hypothesized that when the size of the pollinator matches the separation between the sexual organs in a flower, more pollen should be transferred to the stigma than when the visitor is either too small or too big relative to the flower. To test this hypothesis, we exposed flowers of S. rostratum with varying levels of separation between sexual organs, to bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) of different sizes. We recorded the number of visits received, pollen deposition, and fruit and seed production. We found higher pollen deposition when bees were the same size or bigger than the separation between anther and stigma within a flower. We found a similar, but not statistically significant pattern for fruit set. In contrast, seed set was more likely to occur when the size of the flower exceeded the size of the bee, suggesting that other postpollination processes may be important in translating pollen receipt to seed set. Our results suggest that the fit between flower and pollinator significantly influences pollen deposition in this buzz‐pollinated species. We speculate that in buzz‐pollinated species where floral morphology and pollinators interact closely, variation in the visitor's size may determine whether it acts mainly as a pollinator or as a pollen thief (i.e., removing pollen rewards but contributing little to pollen deposition and fertilization).     

The tiny difference between foraging and communication buzzes uttered by the Mexican free-tailed bat, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Tadarida brasiliensis</Emphasis>

Echolocating insectivorous bats consummate prey captures using a distinct vocal motor pattern commonly known as the terminal or feeding buzz, which is widely considered a fixed motor pattern executed independently of auditory feedback influences. The Mexican free-tailed bat, Tadarida brasiliensis, offers an opportunity to explore the role of sensory feedback in buzzing because they emit similar buzzes both in flight during foraging and while stationary as communication sounds. Here we compared the spectral and temporal patterns of foraging and communication buzzes to address whether or not auditory feedback may influence buzz patterns. We found that while foraging buzzes uttered in open space were composed of generic FM calls, communication buzzes were composed of an adapted CF–FM call similar to the call type used by T. brasiliensis when navigating in confined spaces. This provides the first evidence that some bats can make significant context-dependent changes in the spectral parameters of calls within their buzz. We also found that inter-pulse intervals, but not call durations, were different within the two buzz types. These observations indicate that though a common pattern generator hierarchically organizes all buzzes, T. brasiliensis retains a significant capacity to adapt the spectral and temporal patterns of elements within its buzzes.     

Division of labour within flowers: heteranthery,a floral strategy to reconcile contrasting pollen fates

In many nectarless flowering plants, pollen serves as both the carrier of male gametes and as food for pollinators. This can generate an evolutionary conflict if the use of pollen as food by pollinators reduces the number of gametes available for cross‐fertilization. Heteranthery, the production of two or more stamen types by individual flowers reduces this conflict by allowing different stamens to specialize in ‘pollinating’ and ‘feeding’ functions. We used experimental studies of Solanum rostratum (Solanaceae) and theoretical models to investigate this ‘division of labour’ hypothesis. Flight cage experiments with pollinating bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) demonstrated that although feeding anthers are preferentially manipulated by bees, pollinating anthers export more pollen to other flowers. Evolutionary stability analysis of a model of pollination by pollen consumers indicated that heteranthery evolves when bees consume more pollen than should optimally be exchanged for visitation services, particularly when pollinators adjust their visitation according to the amount of pollen collected.     

Pollinator flight directionality and the assessment of pollen returns

Summary Nectar-foraging pollinators often exhibit a directional pattern of movement between plants when the energetic costs of revisiting previously utilized areas can significantly reduce foraging efficiency. However, bumblebees (Bombus spp.) foraging for pollen on flowers of Aquilegia caerulea rarely moved in a straight line among successively visited plants. Most flights from plants visited were either to closely neighboring plants or were longer and involved bypassing near neighbor plants. Bees biased their flights toward plants with relatively large numbers of flowers yet visited only a small fraction of the flowers on each plant. Such foraging tactics might result when the energetic costs of revisiting plants are minor. Alternatively we suggest that bumblebees foraging for pollen may not perceive revisitations and their associated costs because they do not assess pollen returns on a per plant basis. In this case energetic-efficiency arguments predicting the pattern of foraging movements among plants may be inappropriate. A better level of analysis would be where the bees assess net energy returns, perhaps between bouts of pollen-combing and corbiculae-packing.     

Shakers and head bangers: differences in sonication behavior between Australian <Emphasis Type="Italic">Amegilla murrayensis</Emphasis> (blue-banded bees) and North American <Emphasis Type="Italic">Bombus impatiens</Emphasis> (bumblebees)

Many bees collect pollen by grasping the anthers of a flower and vibrating their flight muscles at high frequencies—a behavior termed sonication, or buzz-pollination. Here we compare buzz-pollination on Solanum lycopersicum (cherry tomatoes) by two bees that fill similar niches on different continents—in Australia, Amegilla murrayensis (blue-banded bee), and in North America, Bombus impatiens (bumblebee). We collected audio recordings of buzz-pollination and quantified the frequency and length of buzzes, as well as the total time spent per flower. We found that A. murrayensis buzzes at significantly higher frequencies (~350 Hz) than B. impatiens (~240 Hz) and flaps its wings at higher frequencies during flight. There was no difference in the length of a single buzz, but A. murrayensis spent less time on each flower, as B. impatiens buzzed the flower several times before departing, whereas A. murrayensis typically buzzed the flower only once. High-speed videos of A. murrayensis during buzz-pollination revealed that its physical interaction with the flower differs markedly from the mechanism described for Bombus and other bees previously examined. Rather than grasping the anther cone with its mandibles and shaking, A. murrayensis taps the anther cone with its head at the high buzzing frequencies generated by its flight muscles. This unique behavior, combined with its higher buzzing frequency and reduced flower visit duration, suggests that A. murrayensis may be able to extract pollen more quickly than B. impatiens, and points to the need for further studies directly comparing the pollination effectiveness of these species.