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.     

Pollen in Bee-Flower Relations Some Considerations on Melittophily*

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

Stamen movements in flowers ofOpuntia (Cactaceae) favour oligolectic pollinators

Opuntia brunneogemmia andO. viridirubra occur sympatrically in the Serra do Sudeste, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Their flowers have 450–600 thigmonastic stamens and provide large amounts of pollen and nectar for bees. Bees of 41 species were registered at the flowers ofO. brunneogemmia and 30 at the flowers ofO. viridirubra. Females of three oligolectic species are the only effective pollinators:Ptilothrix fructifera (Anthophoridae),Lithurgus rufiventris (Megachilidae), andCephalocolletes rugata (Colletidae). During their visits inOpuntia-flowers, bees touch the filaments and stimulate the movement of the stamens to the centre of the flower. At the end of this movement, the anthers are densely packed around the style. As a consequence the pollen is presented in an easily accessible upper layer of anthers and various, nearly inaccessible lower layers. The lower layers contain about 80% of the pollen reward. Only females of the three oligolectic pollinators exploit the pollen from the lower layers and reach the nectar furrow. Therefore, through their stamen movements,Opuntia flowers hide most of their pollen from flower visitors but favour effectively pollinating, oligolectic bees.     

Differences in pollinator effectiveness of birds and insects visiting Banksia menziesii (Proteaceae)

Summary The effectiveness of nectarivorous birds, introduced honey bees and staphylined beetles as pollinators of Banksia menziesii was assessed. Staphylinids removed substantial amounts of pollen but did not deposit any onto stigmata. Abundance of beetles on inflorescences was related to the mean number of florets opening per day. Honey bees collecting pollen were more likely to effect pollination than those collecting nectar which only contacted stigmata when arriving or leaving an inflorescence. Nectar-foraging birds probed between florets 10.2±0.8 (±SE) times, contacting 8–16 stigmata during each probe. Bees visited inflorescences ten times more frequently than birds although they deposited only 25% of the pollen that birds did on stigmata. Fruit set was ten times greater on inflorescences visited by birds than on inflorescences visited by bees. Bees were capable of removing as much pollen as birds but, because of direct pollen transfer to birds when florets opened during foraging, actual removal was probably much less. Selection for floret opening during nectar foraging by birds may have resulted from pollen removal by non-pollinating animals, such as staphylinids.     

Honeybees and the nectar of Echium plantagineum L. in southeastern Australia

An account is given of the flower of Echium plantagineum in south-eastern Australia, including stages and timing of flowering, behaviour of raindrops in the flower and aspects of floral microclimate. The concentration of nectar solutes varied with time and site, with means varying from 2 to 62% (as g sucrose/100 g solution). There was a significant negative correlation between nectar solute concentration and ambient relative humidity: the drier the air, the more concentrated the nectar. Rates of nectar secretion per flower varied with the bagging method, with long-term bagging reducing net secretion rates, possibly because of re-absorption. Rates varied with time, day and site, with a temporal pattern of change suggesting a link between rates of photosynthesis and secretion. Maximum nectar secretion rates in short-term bagging experiments were ca. 300 μg sugar/flower/hr (equivalent to > 2 mglflower/24 hr). Secretion rate was correlated with flower density. As flower density increased, secretion rate per flower decreased; rate of sugar production per unit area increased relatively more slowly than flower density. E. plantagineum could produce > 500 mg sugar/m²/day. Honeybees foraged on E. plantagineum only at ambient air temperatures above ca. 17°C unless irradiance exceeded ca. 750 W m^-2. Foragers collected nectar or pollen alone, or both, with the type of visit significantly correlated with nectar solute concentration. Below 35% (as g sucrose/100 g solution) most bees took pollen only; above 40%, most took nectar. Mean standing crop of nectar was generally < 100 μg/flower when most bees were taking nectar, but could exceed 1000 μg/flower when bees were absent or foraging mainly for pollen. Honeybees did not always remove all nectar from flowers they probed. Reabsorption of residual nectar may augment the following day's secretion.     

Pollination, Pollen Viability and Pistil Receptivity in Cucurbita pepo

Cucurbita pepo carries male and female flowers on the same plant,and is pollinated by nectar-collecting bees. The nectaries aredimorphic in the two sexes and pollen is loaded and unloadedas the bees gain access to the nectar. Both types of flowerare open for only 6 h (from 0600 h to 1200 h); male flowersopen and close half an hour earlier than female flowers. Thelatter produce more nectar and are visited more often by thebees than the male flowers. Pollen viability determined by fluoresceindiacetate (fluorochromatic reaction) decreases by 20% duringanthesis and more rapidly after the flower closes. This decreaseis due to dehydration of the grain, especially around the porewhere the intine is exposed. An unusual feature of this speciesis that the grains do not dehydrate before anther dehiscence.Female receptivity has two aspects, that of the stigma lasting4 d, and that of the ovules lasting 2 d. The receptivity ofthe two sexes and the short period of anthesis are discussedin the light of the reproductive ecology of the species.Copyright1993, 1999 Academic Press Entomophilous pollination, anthesis, nectars, pollen viability, female receptivity, bees, pollinator efficiency, courgette Cucurbita pepo, Cucurbitaceae     

Effects of nectar robbing on nectar dynamics and bumblebee foraging strategies in Linaria vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae)

Differences in morphology among bumblebee species sharing a nectar resource may lead to variation in foraging behaviour and efficiency. Less efficient bumblebees might opportunistically switch foraging strategies from legitimate visitation to secondary robbing when hole-biting primary robbers are present. We observed various aspects of pollination and nectar robbing ecology of Linaria vulgaris in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, with emphasis on the role of bumblebee proboscis length. Bees can extract nectar from a nectar spur legitimately, by entering the front of the flower, or illegitimately, by biting or reusing holes in the spur. Although L. vulgaris flowers are apparently adapted for pollination by long-tongued bees, short-tongued bees visited them legitimately for trace amounts of nectar but switched to secondary robbing in the presence of primary robbers. Longer-tongued bees removed more nectar in less time than did shorter-tongued bees, and were less likely to switch to secondary robbing even when ∼100% of flowers had been pierced. As the proportion of robbed flowers in the population increased, the relative number of legitimate visits decreased while the relative number of robbing visits increased. Robbing decreased nectar standing crop and increased the proportion of empty flowers per inflorescence. Despite these potentially detrimental effects of robbers, differences in inflorescence use among robbers and pollinators, and the placement of holes made by primary robbers, may mitigate negative effects of nectar robbing in L. vulgaris . We discuss some of the reasons that L. vulgaris pollination ecology and growth form might temper the potentially negative effect of nectar robbing.     

Colour learning when foraging for nectar and pollen: bees learn two colours at once

Bees are model organisms for the study of learning and memory, yet nearly all such research to date has used a single reward, nectar. Many bees collect both nectar (carbohydrates) and pollen (protein) on a single foraging bout, sometimes from different plant species. We tested whether individual bumblebees could learn colour associations with nectar and pollen rewards simultaneously in a foraging scenario where one floral type offered only nectar and the other only pollen. We found that bees readily learned multiple reward–colour associations, and when presented with novel floral targets generalized to colours similar to those trained for each reward type. These results expand the ecological significance of work on bee learning and raise new questions regarding the cognitive ecology of pollination.     

Effects of variation in inflorescence size and floral rewards on the visitation rates of traplining pollinators ofAralia hispida

Summary In field experiments withAralia hispida inflorescences, the following variables were manipulated: number of umbels per inflorescence, number of flowers per umbel, and amounts of pollen and nectar per flower. Visitation rates by bumble bees, the principal pollinators, were then observed. In the reward-variation experiments, bees appeared to learn the positions of nectar-rich shoots, and visited them significantly more often than nectar-poor shoots. They did not respond to similar variation in pollen production. The nectar preferences developed slowly after the treatments were imposed, and bees continued to favor sites that had been occupied by nectar-rich shoots even after the treatments were discontinued. Visitation rate was approximately proportional to flower number, making it unlikely that increases in inflorescence size produced a disproportionate gain in male reproductive success (a necessary condition in certain models for the evolution of dioecy). For a fixed number of flowers per inflorescence, bees preferred inflorescences with more umbels. In pairwise choice tests of male-phase and female-phase umbels of various sizes, bees preferred male-phase umbels and larger umbels; the preference for male-phase umbels is stronger in bees that had previously fed on male-phase umbels.     

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

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

More than protein? Bee–flower interactions and effects of disturbance regimes revealed by rare pollen in bee nests

Bees and their host flower populations were studied by identifying pollen to species or genus, from trap nests where bees were reared. Rare plant species in bee diets, and disturbance regimes, have not previously been researched and are emphasized here. Two focal bee groups with one species each (Megachilidae and Apidae) were studied in a 500,000-ha tropical reserve in the Yucatán Peninsula nine complete years. The number of rare or major pollen species in nests had no statistical correlation; thus, rare pollen analysis complements study of major brood provisions. We found most nests (87 % Megachile zaptlana, 93 % Centris analis) contained rare pollen; only 12 % of the 438 nests contained major pollen alone. Rare pollen sometimes indicated an energy source rather than a scarce protein resource. Trichome nectar of Cydista, along with Ipomoea and Caesalpinia, were nectar sources. Malpighiaceae, despite lacking nectar, often provided the complete Centris diet. Considering rare pollen, only Centris responded to drought, or competition from immigrant honeybees. Neither bee responded to hurricanes. Drought years coincided with low bee populations; Centris nests contained more rare species then. After feral Africanized honeybees colonized, Centris had more major species and fewer rare. Some herbarium vouchers from the study area contained exotic pollen, demonstrating in situ floral contamination and ecological generalization by bees, but this rarely occurred in plants found among the bee diets. Megachile and Centris responded differently to competition and resource scarcity, and plausibly evolved under different disturbance regimes, yet appeared well adapted to hurricane disturbance.     

Risk-Sensitive Foraging in a Patch Departure Context: A Test with Worker Bumble Bees

Typically, tests of risk-sensitive foraging involve observinga subject's choices of alternative prey types differing in somecombination of mean and variance of expected foraging gain.Here, we consider the problem of risk-sensitive foraging whenthere is a single prey type. We observed worker bumble bees(Bombus occidentalis) foraging in an array of artificial 2-flowerinflorescences. After visiting the bottom flower in an inflorescenceand obtaining a reward of some size, the bee decides whetherto visit the top flower or to move to a new inflorescence (apatch departure). Here, risk-sensitive behavior is expressedas the forager's choice of patch departure threshold (PDT) ofreward obtained in the bottom flower. We measured the PDTs ofbees whose colony energy stores (and therefore energy requirements)had been manipulated (Enhanced or Depleted). Simulations ledus to predict that shortfall-minimizing bees should decreasetheir PDTs when their colony energy reserves were depleted,relative to when the reserves were enhanced. Bees did not usea strict patch departure threshold, but instead the probabilityof departure varied with nectar volume in the bottom flower.Colony energy stores did affect patch departure behavior, butthis effect was confounded by the order in which manipulationof colony reserves was applied. Further, simulations of observedbee patch departure decisions did not produce behavior expectedif the decisions were based on shortfall-minimization. We concludethat a bee's decision of when to leave an inflorescence is notpredicted by a static shortfall-minimizing model. Our resultsalso implicate an important interaction between learning andforaging requirements. We review risk-sensitivity in bees, anddiscuss why risk-sensitive foraging may be adaptive for bumblebees.     

Competition for nectar resources does not affect bee foraging tactic constancy

1. Competition alters animal foraging, including promoting the use of alternative resources. It may also impact how animals feed when they are able to handle the same food with more than one tactic. Competition likely impacts both consumers and their resources through its effects on food handling, but this topic has received little attention. 2. Bees often use two tactics for extracting nectar from flowers: they can visit at the flower opening, or rob nectar from holes at the base of flowers. Exploitative competition for nectar is thought to promote nectar robbing. If so, higher competition among floral visitors should reduce constancy to a single foraging tactic as foragers will seek food using all possible tactics. To test this prediction, field observations and two experiments involving bumble bees visiting three montane Colorado plant species (Mertensia ciliata, Linaria vulgaris, Corydalis caseana) were used under various levels of inter- and intra-specific competition for nectar. 3. In general, individual bumble bees remained constant to a single foraging tactic, independent of competition levels. However, bees that visited M. ciliata in field observations decreased their constancy and increased nectar robbing rates as visitation rates by co-visitors increased. 4. While tactic constancy was high overall regardless of competition intensity, this study highlights some intriguing instances in which competition and tactic constancy may be linked. Further studies investigating the cognitive underpinnings of tactic constancy should provide insight on the ways in which animals use alternative foraging tactics to exploit resources.     

Hedgerow presence does not enhance indicators of nest‐site habitat quality or nesting rates of ground‐nesting bees

A major challenge in habitat restoration is targeting the key aspects of a species' niche for enhancement, particularly for species that use a diverse set of habitat features. However, restoration that focuses on limited aspects of a species' niche may neglect other resources that are critical to population persistence. We evaluated the ability of native plant hedgerows, planted to increase pollen and nectar resources for wild bees in agricultural landscapes, to provide suitable nesting habitat and enhance nesting rates of ground‐nesting bees. We found that, when compared to unmanaged field edges (controls), hedgerows did not augment most indicators of nest habitat quality (bare ground, soil surface irregularity, and soil hardness), although coarser soils were associated with higher incidence and richness of nesting bees. Hedgerows did not augment nesting rates when compared to control edges. Although all the bee species we detected nesting were also found foraging on floral resources, the foraging versus nesting assemblages found within a site were highly dissimilar. These results may reflect sampling error; or, species found foraging but not nesting in hedgerows could be utilizing hedgerows as “partial habitats,” nesting outside hedgerow plantings but foraging on the floral resources they provide. We conclude that although hedgerows are known to provide critical floral resources to wild bees especially in resource‐poor intensive agricultural landscapes, simply increasing vegetative diversity and structure may not be simultaneously enhancing nesting habitat for ground‐nesting bees.     

Effects of pollen species composition on the foraging behaviour and offspring performance of the mason bee Osmia bicornis (L.)

The effects of floral species composition on offspring performance of solitary bees are rarely studied under conditions where foraging behaviour of mothers is allowed to play a role. In a semi-field experiment, we restricted foraging choices of the polylectic mason bee Osmia bicornis L. to flower species belonging to plant families presumably used to different extent: Borago officinalis L. (Boraginaceae), Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) and Brassica napus L. (Brassicaceae). We quantified the foraging behaviour and brood cell production by mother bees, and compared the quality of offspring in pure and mixed flower species stands. Offspring survival in pure stands was expected to reflect the mothers’ foraging preferences in the mixed stand. Pure stands of B. napus supported highest offspring survival, body mass and fraction of females produced. Offspring survival on C. cyanus and B. officinalis was very low. Larval mortality occurred earlier in brood cells provided with B. officinalis pollen than in brood cells provided with C. cyanus pollen suggesting different effects of pollen quality on early larval and later development. The time spent on different foraging activities correlated with lifetime reproductive output. However, in mixed stands, the proportion of time the bees were foraging on the different flower species did not differ significantly. Foraging behaviour may therefore not generally be a good proxy for the quality of floral resources for offspring production. Our results suggest that resources collected from one plant species may influence the usefulness of resources from another plant species. Bees may therefore overcome potentially deleterious effects of the suboptimal resources by mixing low- and high-quality resources. This may help generalist bees, such as O. bicornis, to cope with an unpredictable environment.     

Regulation of nectar collection in relation to honey storage levels by honey bees, Apis mellifera

Honey bees collect distinct nutrient sources in the form ofnectar (energy) and pollen (nitrogen). We investigated the effectof varying energy stores on nectar and pollen foraging. We foundno significant changes in nectar foraging in response to changesin honey storage levels within colonies. Individual foragersdid not vary activity rates or nectar load sizes in responseto changes in honey stores, and colonies did not increase nectarintake rates when honey stores within the hive were decreased.This result contrasts with pollen foraging behavior, which isextremely sensitive to colony state. Our data show that individualforaging decisions during nectar collection and colony regulationof nectar intake are distincdy different from pollen foraging.The behavior of honey bees illustrates that foraging strategy(and therefore foraging models) can incorporate multiple currencies,including both energy and protein intake.[Behav Ecol 7: 286–291(1996)]     

Flower Choice and Learning in Foraging Bumblebees: Effects of Variation in Nectar Volume and Concentration

Bees collect food from flowers that differ in morphology, color, and scent. Nectar‐seeking foragers can rapidly associate a flower's cues with its profitability, measured as caloric value or ‘net energy gain,’ and generally develop preferences for more profitable species. If two flower types are equally easy to discover and feed from, differences in profitability will arise from differences in the volume or the sugar concentration of their nectar crops. Although there has been much study of how bees respond to one or the other of these two kinds of nectar variation, few studies have considered both at once. We presented free‐foraging bumblebees with two different types of equally rewarding artificial flowers. After a period of familiarization, we made one type more rewarding than the other by increasing its nectar concentration, volume, or both. Bees responded more rapidly to a change in the reward's sugar concentration than to a change in its volume, even if the profitability differences were approximately equal. Sucrose concentration differences (40% vs. 13%) caused bees to virtually abandon the more dilute flower type, whether both types offered the same volume (2 μl) or the less concentrated reward offered higher volume (7 μl vs. 0.85 μl). When the two types of flower differed only in nectar volume (7 μl vs. 0.85 μl), the less rewarding type continued to receive 22% of the visits. We propose three different hypotheses to explain the stronger response of the bees to changes in sugar concentration: (i) their response threshold to sucrose concentration might change; (ii) less time is needed to assess the concentration of a reward than its volume; and (iii) a smaller sample size may be needed for reliable estimation of profitability when flowers differ in concentration.     

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.     

Insights from measuring pollen deposition: quantifying the pre-eminence of bees as flower visitors and effective pollinators

Using our accumulated datasets from Kenyan savanna, Mediterranean garigue, UK gardens and heathland, involving 76 plants from 30 families, we present detailed data to quantify the superiority of bees as pollinators of most flowering plants when compared with other flower visitors. Bees provided the majority of visits to study species at all sites, and 33 of the 76 plants received more than 90% of their visits from bees. Furthermore, pollen deposition onto stigmas from single-visit events (SVD, a measure of pollination effectiveness) was significantly higher for bees than non-bees at all the four sites where a major proportion of the flora was sampled. Solitary bees, and also bumblebees in temperate habitats, were the best potential pollinators for most plants in this respect, and significantly out-performed honeybees. Only a few plants were well served by bombyliid flies, and fewer again by larger hoverflies, butterflies, or solitary wasps. Bees also achieved better matches of their visit timing to peak pollen availability (measured indirectly as peak SVD), and made much shorter visits to flowers than did non-bees, permitting a substantially greater visit frequency. Additionally, they deposited significantly lower levels of potentially deleterious heterospecific pollen on stigmas in heathland and Mediterranean garigue, though not in the UK garden with densely clustered high-diversity flowering, or in the Kenyan savanna site with particularly dispersed flowering patches and some specialist non-bee flowers. Our data provide a novel and quantified characterisation of the specific advantages of bees as flower visitors, and underline the need to conserve diverse bee communities.     

The collection of pollen by bees

Bees require pollen for their reproduction and pollen comprises the basic larval food for bees. Most bees acquire pollen passively during flower visitation, but female bees may also collect pollen actively with the aid of various structural and behavioral adaptations. Most bees have evolved adaptations to concentrate pollen into discrete loads and transport pollen back to their nests. The various structural and behavioral adaptations of female bees for acquiring and transporting pollen are the basis of this review.