Initial floral visitor identity and foraging time strongly influence blueberry reproductive success

Priority effects occur when the order of species arrival affects subsequent ecological processes. The order that pollinator species visit flowers may affect pollination through a priority effect, whereby the first visitor reduces or modifies the contribution of subsequent visits. We observed floral visitation to blueberry flowers from honeybees, stingless bees or a mixture of both species and investigated how (i) initial visits differed in duration to later visits; and (ii) how visit sequences from different pollinator taxa influenced fruit weight. Stingless bees visited blueberry flowers for significantly longer than honeybees and maintained their floral visit duration, irrespective of the number of preceding visits. In contrast, honeybee visit duration declined significantly with an increasing number of preceding visits. Fruit weight was positively associated with longer floral visit duration by honeybees but not from stingless bee or mixed species visitation. Fruit from mixed species visits were heavier overall than single species visits, because of a strong priority effect. An initial visit by a stingless bee fully pollinated the flower, limiting the pollination contribution of future visitors. However, after an initial honeybee visit, flowers were not fully pollinated and additional visitation had an additive effect upon fruit weight. Blueberries from flowers visited first by stingless bees were 60% heavier than those visited first by honeybees when total floral visitation was short (∼1 min). However, when total visitation time was long (∼ 8 min), blueberry fruit were 24% heavier when initial visits were from honeybees. Our findings highlight that the initial floral visit can have a disproportionate effect on pollination outcomes. Considering priority effects alongside traditional measures of pollinator effectiveness will provide a greater mechanistic understanding of how pollinator communities influence plant reproductive success.     

Can honey bees change foraging patterns?

Abstract. 1. Foraging patterns were studied using honey bees on artificial flower patches to determine if given individuals could change behaviours under differing conditions.
2. Two types of flower patches were used; those simulating a population of flowers, dimorphic for colour, and grids simulating a single colour-dimorphic inflorescence.
3. In the simulated population of flowers bees were individually constant to colour over a range of reward volumes and flower patch sizes.
4. Each bee remained individually constant to a flower morph when visiting a population-type grid but changed to random visitation on the simulated inflorescence.
5. On the simulated inflorescence, with morphs providing unequal qualities of reward, most bees foraged on the higher molarity morph.
6. Most, but not all bees, failed to minimize uncertainty on the simulated inflorescence.
7. On the simulated inflorescence, bees failed to optimize when one morph provided a greater reward volume than did the other.
8. In the population of flowers bees flew from flower to flower, whereas, they walked on the simulated inflorescence.     

Visual cues and foraging choices: bee visits to floral colour phases in Alkanna orientalis (Boraginaceae)

When a pollination vector is required, any mechanism that contributes to floral visitation will potentially benefit the reproductive fitness of a plant. We studied the effect of floral colour change in the desert perennial Alkanna orientalis on the foraging behaviour of the solitary bee Anthophora pauperata . Flowers changed colour over time from bright yellow (with moderate nectar reward) to pale yellow/white (with significantly lower nectar reward). Bee visitation was non-random with respect to colour phase availability within the flower population and was biased towards the more rewarding flowers. At plants where the availability of colour phases had been manipulated experimentally to produce 'bright' or 'pale' plants, bees visited significantly more flowers (and for longer periods) on the bright plants. The change of flower colour was not simply age-related; we observed variation in the temporal course of colour change and our data suggest that visitation, leading to deposition of cross-pollen, can accelerate the process. In subpopulations with limited pollinators, Alkanna can influence bees by using their colour-related foraging preferences to alter visitation patterns.  © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2006, 87 , 427–435.     

Are flower-visiting ants mutualists or antagonists? A study in a gynodioecious wild strawberry

Ants are common flower visitors, but their effects on plant reproductive fitness have not often been assessed. Flower-visiting ants were studied to determine whether they are antagonists or mutualists and whether they could influence floral or breeding system evolution in gynodioecious wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana). Ant and flying pollinator (bees/flies) access to plants was manipulated, and visitation, fruit, and seed set were assessed. Ants visited flowers of hermaphrodites more often than those of females when bees and flies were excluded, but visited the sex morphs equally when they were present. Insect class did not influence fruit or seed set of hermaphrodites. In contrast, ants had both positive and negative effects on seed set in females. Females visited only by ants had 90% of the seed set of those visited only by bees/flies, and their seed set increased with ant visitation. The spatial pattern of seed set, however, suggests that ants may also damage pistils. Lastly, in contrast to bees and flies, ants failed to increase visitation with floral display size, suggesting that ant presence at flowers could reduce selection on this attractive trait. Findings suggest that when in high abundance, flower-visiting ants could affect breeding system and floral evolution in this gynodioecious plant.     

Role of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in the pollination biology of a California native plant, Triteleia laxa (Asparagales: Themidaceae)

A central focus of pollination biology is to document the relative effectiveness of different flower visitors as pollinators. Ongoing research seeks to determine the role that introduced honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) play in the pollination of both invasive and native plants. Here we report on the importance of A. mellifera as pollinators of a California native plant, Triteleia laxa Bentham. In observation plots and transect censuses, A. mellifera overwhelmingly dominated the T. laxa flower visitor assemblage. We believe the proximity to agriculture, where A. mellifera density is higher relative to areas far from agriculture, contributes to the discrepancy between A. mellifera abundance at the two sites. Although A. mellifera were inferior flower visitors qualitatively (visited less flowers per minute), they were the most frequent interactors with flowers. Furthermore, the proportion of visits to flowers on the same plant among flower visitor species did not differ, suggesting a general mechanism by which insects forage at T. laxa flowers and that A. mellifera do not cause more deleterious geitonogamy than do native pollinators. Flower visitation rates as a function of floral display size did not differ between A. mellifera and other flower visitors. The difference in the magnitude of flower visitation (largely by A. mellifera) between sites is consistent with a difference in seed set between sites. These results suggest that non-native A. mellifera bees can play an important role in the pollination of native plant species.     

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.     

A reassessment of the function of floral nectar in Croton suberosus (Euphorbiaceae): A reward for plant defenders and pollinators

Typically, plant-pollinator interactions are recognized as mutualistic relationships. Flower visitors, however, can potentially play multiple roles. The floral nectar in Croton suberosus has been proposed to operate as a reward for predators, especially the wasp Polistes instabilis (Vespidae), which kills herbivorous insects, while the plant has been thought to be mainly wind-pollinated. In this study, we reassessed the pollination mode of C. suberosus and the possible role of its flower visitors. Pollinator exclusion experiments demonstrated that C. suberosus should be considered a strictly entomophilous species. Inflorescences of C. suberosus were visited by a diverse entomofauna involving 28 taxa belonging to six orders; however, wasps and bees were the only visitors that carried C. suberosus pollen. The visitation rate of wasps was approximately four times that of bees. This observation, combined with the fact that the small size of bees makes effective contact of their bodies with the stigma difficult, strongly suggests that large wasps are responsible for most of the effective pollination of C. suberosus. Among the wasp visitors, P. instabilis seems to be one of the most important. These findings expose an unusual plant-insect interaction, in which the plant provides nectar and wasps pollinate and defend the plant.     

Pollinator effectiveness of native and non‐native flower visitors to an apparently generalist Andean shrub,Duranta mandonii (Verbenaceae)

Not all visitors to flowers are pollinators and pollinating taxa can vary greatly in their effectiveness. Using a combination of observations and experiments we compared the effectiveness of introduced honeybees with that of hummingbirds, native bees and moths on both the male and female components of fitness of the Andean shrub Duranta mandonii (Verbenaceae). Our results demonstrated significant variation among flower visitors in rates of visitation, pollen removal ability and contribution to fruit set. This variation was not always correlated; that is, taxa that regularly visited flowers did not remove the most pollen or contribute to fruit set. Despite the taxonomic diversity of visitors, the main natural pollinators of this shrub are large native bees, such as Bombus spp. Introduced honeybees were found to be as effective as native bees at pollinating this species. Duranta mandonii has high apparent generalization, but low realized generalization and can be considered to be a moderate ecological generalist (a number of species of large bees provide pollination services), but a functional specialist (most pollinators belong to a single functional group). The present study has highlighted the importance of measuring efficiency components when documenting plant–pollinator interactions, and has also demonstrated that visitation rates may give little insight into the relative importance of flower visitors.     

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.     

Bees in two-armed bandit situations: foraging choices and possible decision mechanisms

In multi-armed bandit situations, gamblers must choose repeatedlybetween options that differ in reward probability, withoutprior information on the options' relative profitability. Foragingbumblebees encounter similar situations when choosing repeatedlyamong flower species that differ in food rewards. Unlike proficientgamblers, bumblebees do not choose the highest-rewarding optionexclusively. This incomplete exclusiveness may reflect an adaptivesampling strategy. A cost—benefit analysis predicts decreasedsampling levels with increasing differences in mean profitability between the available food sources. We simulated two-armed banditsituations in laboratory experiments to test this prediction.Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris L.) made 300 foraging visitsto blue and yellow artificial flowers that dispensed sucrosesolution according to seven probabilistic reward schedules.Reward schedules varied in profitability differences between the two feeding options. As predicted, the bees specializedmore on the higher-rewarding food type (and thus sampled thealternative less) when the mean reward difference between thefeeding options was larger. Choice ratios of individual beeswere linearly related to the reward ratios they had experienced.It has been suggested that the behavioral mechanism underlying incomplete exclusiveness may involve simple rules of thumb thatdo not require long-term memory. However, the bees' responseto recent foraging experience (rewarded and non-rewarded visits)differed between the beginning and the end of observation sessionsand between treatments. Simulations of the Rescorla-Wagnerdifference learning rule reproduced the main trends of the results. These findings suggest that the observed incompleteexclusiveness results from associative learning involving long-termmemory.     

Foraging behavior affects pollen removal and deposition in Impatiens capensis (Balsaminaceae)

Flowers of most plant species are visited by a variety of animals. Some of these visitors are effective pollinators while others remove resources without transferring pollen. Studies comparing the effectiveness of different visitors as pollinators often compare taxa without considering variation in behavior within a taxon. Wilson and Thomson (Ecology 72: 1503-1507, 1991) documented the effects of honey bees and bumble bees on the pollination dynamics of Impatiens capensis. They found that pollen-collecting honey bees removed large numbers of pollen grains from anthers but deposited little of it on stigmas; bumble bees, which sought nectar, removed less pollen but deposited more of it on stigmas. It is unclear whether the low pollen transfer efficiencies of honey bees are explained by their morphology or by their pollen-collecting behavior. We repeated the work of Wilson and Thomson at a site where honey bees were foraging for nectar, not pollen. We measured the quantity of pollen remaining in anthers, the number of pollen grains deposited on stigmas, and seed production after single visits by honey bees and bumble bees. The differences between the taxa disappeared when they were foraging in a similar manner. Our results clearly demonstrate the importance of foraging behavior on the pollination effectiveness of floral visitors.     

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

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

Flower‐visitor networks only partially predict the function of pollen transport by bees

Mutualistic networks display distinct structural and organizational features such as nestedness, power‐law degree distribution and asymmetric dependencies. Attention is now focused on how these structural properties influence network function. Most plant‐pollinator networks are constructed using records of animals contacting flowers, which is based on the assumption that all visitors to flowers are pollinators; however, animals may visit flowers as nectar robbers, florivores, or to prey upon other visitors. To differentiate potential pollinator interactions from other interaction types, we examined individual bees that had visited flowers to detect if they carried pollen. Using these data, we constructed visitation and pollen‐transport networks for a spinifex‐dominated arid zone grassland. To determine how the structure of the visitation network reflects pollen transport, we compared the two networks using a null model approach to account for differences in network size. Differences in number of species, nestedness and connectance observed between the visitation and pollen‐transport networks were within expected ranges generated under the null model. The pollen‐transport network was more specialized, had lower interaction evenness, and fewer links compared to the visitation network. Almost half the number of species of the visitation network participated in the pollen‐transport network, and one‐third of unique visitation interactions resulted in pollen transport, highlighting that visitation does not always result in pollination. Floral visitor data indicate potential pollen transporters, but inferring pollination function from visitation networks needs to be performed cautiously as pollen transport resulted from both common and rare interactions, and depended on visitor identity. Although visitation and pollen‐transport networks are structurally similar, the function of all species cannot be predicted from the visitation network alone. Considering pollen transport in visitation networks is a simple first step towards determining pollinators from non‐pollinators. This is fundamental for understanding how network structure relates to network function.     

Dioecious <Emphasis Type="Italic">Clusia nemorosa</Emphasis> achieves pollination by combining specialized and generalized floral rewards

Plants often combine multiple strategies to achieve pollen transfer. The dioecious Clusia nemorosa (Clusiaceae) produces floral resin, a specialized reward for resin-collecting bees. It also exhibits floral automimicry with female flowers mimicking male flowers in order to attract pollen-collecting insects. We observed the hourly visitation frequency and behaviour of bee visitors on two rock savanna sites in French Guiana. The major strategy in pollen transfer and the variation in visitation rates among visitor species were examined. We hypothesized that the visitation rate will vary between the floral sexes and degree of this variation will differ between the two-reward systems. We found no evidence for visits being exclusively related to resin collection, which we expected to be the principal strategy in pollen transfer. Deceit pollination appeared to have minor importance and seemed to be locally associated with the site, where demand for pollen was greater. Flower visits that probably facilitated most pollen transfer, combined resin and pollen. The pollinators involved in this system collected pollen from male flowers and resin from female flowers. The fruit set was not particularly low (44.19%) so offering different rewards by different flower genders has not constrained reproductive success in this system. Pronounced variation in visitation rates between sexes was not related to the pollination mechanisms but to the demand for the two rewards. Overall demand for pollen was greater than demand for resin. Female flowers were visited much less frequently than male flowers. Peak pollen collection occurred in the morning, i.e., as soon as the resource was available, while resin was collected throughout the day. There was a local variability in demand for the two resources because both the visitation rate and the behaviour of foraging bees varied between the two observation sites.     

Links between floral morphology and floral visitors along an elevational gradient in a Penstemon hybrid zone

Hybrid zones can form when two species of plants hybridize along an environmental gradient. Changes in floral morphology across such a gradient and the degree of reproductive isolation can be influenced by pollinator behavior, but little is known about pollinator visitation to hybridizing species that receive visits from a diverse array of animals. I studied floral morphology, nectar rewards and pollinator visitation for Penstemon newberryi , P. davidsonii and their hybrids along an elevational gradient in the Sierra Nevada of California. Sixty-two floral visitor species were observed visiting plants, making this system highly generalized compared to previous studies of visitation in hybrid zones. Morphological measurements were used to construct a plant hybrid index and examine the correlation with elevation and with floral visitors. Using observations of floral visitors along the gradient, I performed an ordination to determine whether the pollinator community changed along with plant morphology. Plants varied in a clinal pattern along the elevational gradient. The visitor community varied incrementally with altitude, although visitors to Penstemon davidsonii were separated from those to P. newberryi and hybrids along the main ordination axis. Hummingbirds were only found at low and middle elevations, and small halictid bees were relatively more abundant at high elevations. Although there is some potential for ecological isolation in the pollinator community, 11 common pollinator species visited both parent species and could be contributing to hybrid formation.     

Sources of variation in pollinator contribution within a guild: the effects of plant and pollinator factors

Among plants visited by many pollinator species, the relative contribution of each pollinator to plant reproduction is determined by variation in both pollinator and plant traits. Here we evaluate how pollinator movement among plants, apparent pollen carryover, ovule number, resource limitation of seed set, and pollen output affect variation in contribution of individual pollinator species to seed set in Lithophragma parviflorum (Saxifragaceae), a species visited by a broad spectrum of visitors, including beeflies, bees and a moth species. A previous study demonstrated differences among visitor species in their single-visit pollination efficacy but did not evaluate how differences in visitation patterns and pollen carryover affect pollinator efficacy. Incorporation of differential visitation patterns and pollen carryover effects —commonly cited as potentially important in evaluating pollinator guilds — had minor effects (0–0.6% change) on the estimates of relative contribution based on visit frequency and single-visit efficacy alone. Beeflies visited significantly more flowers per inflorescence than the bees and the moth. Seed set remained virtually constant during the first three visited flowers for beeflies and larger bees, indicating that apparent pollen carryover did not reduce per-visit efficacy of these taxa. In contrast, Greya moth visits showed a decrease in seed set by 55.4% and the smaller bees by 45.4% from first to second flower. The larger carryover effects in smaller bees and Greya were diminished in importance by their small overall contribution to seed set. Three variable plant traits may affect seed set: ovule number, resource limitation on seed maturation, and pollen output. Ovule number per flower declined strongly with later position within inflorescences. Numbers were much higher in first-year greenhouse-grown plants than in field populations, and differences increased during 3 years of study. Mean pollen count by position varied 7-fold among flowers; it paralleled ovule number variation, resulting in a relatively stable pollen:ovule ratio. Resource limitation of seed set increased strongly with later flowering, with seed set in hand-pollinated flowers ranging from 66% in early flowers to 0% in the last two flowers of all plants. Variation in ovule number and resource limitation of seed maturation jointly had a strong effect on the number of seeds per flower. Visitation to early flowers had the potential to cause more seed set than visitation to later flowers. Overall, the most important sources of variation to seed production contribution were differences among pollinators in abundance and absolute efficacy (ovules fertilized on a single visit) and potentially differential phenology among visitor species. These effects are likely to vary among populations and years.     

Native flower strips increase visitation by non-bee insects to avocado flowers and promote yield

Pollination is an essential ecosystem service for pollinator-dependent crops and plant communities. Apis mellifera L. is by far the most commonly used species to obtain this service in agriculture. However, there is growing evidence of the importance for crop yields of the service provided by wild bees and non-bee insect pollinators. Establishing flower resources in agricultural landscapes is a management practice that can increase insect pollinator populations and improve crop yields. We established perennial native flower strips (NFS) in four avocado orchards in central Chile during autumn 2017. We monitored flower visitors and counted newly formed fruits in avocados near and far from NFS in spring 2019, to assess flower visitor groups, flower visitation rates and fruit numbers. Only A. mellifera visited avocado flowers within bees, whereas both the managed A. mellifera and wild bees were the main visitors to the NFS. NFS increased visitation rates to adjacent avocado of flies, and with a trend for the sum of all non-managed flower visitors (i.e. excluding A. mellifera). However, there were no differences in the rates of A. mellifera visitation to avocados near and far from NFS. Avocado fruit numbers were higher among avocados near NFS than among those farther away. This difference could be due to better pollination by the increased visits to avocado flowers by flies or other wild insects. Therefore, NFS could contribute to crop fruit number, as well as conservation of native flora, wild bees and non-bee pollinators on fruit farms in the “Central Chile” biodiversity hotspot.     

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.     

How long to stay on a plant: the response of bumblebees to encountered nectar levels

This field study shows that the number of flowers visited per bee per plant (Anchusa officinalis) increases with the instantaneous nectar level at the plant. Observations during the season showed that a bee visits more flowers per plant of given nectar level, the lower the overall mean nectar level in the study area. These results agree with predictions from a model based on the ‘marginal value theorem’, but with assumptions and constraints adapted for nectar-foraging bees. It suggests that bumblebees assess the nectar level at a plant by sampling one or a few flowers, which is possible because within-plant nectar volumes are correlated. The bees compare encountered gains to an optimal plant switching threshold equal to the overall mean nectar level and leave an unrewarding plant as soon as possible, but continue to visit the flowers on a rewarding plant. However, the bees leave before having visited all flowers due to a searching constraint. The bees’ response to plant nectar levels results in systematic flower visitation, because visitation to recently depleted flowers is reduced, which reduces the variation of the inter-visit time per flower. Systematic flower visitation implies that the overall mean encountered gain per flower is higher than the overall mean standing crop, as predicted by a model of systematic foraging. However, the sampling and searching constraints on the bees’ response to plant nectar levels increase the variation of the inter-visit time per flower, and thereby limit the degree of systematic flower visitation and the effect on the mean encountered gain.     

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.