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

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

     

Bumble bee abundance and richness improves honey bee pollination behaviour in sweet cherry

Pollination service in agricultural crops increases significantly with pollinator diversity and wild pollinator abundance. Differences in the foraging behaviour of pollinating insects are one of the reasons why pollinator diversity and abundance enhances crop pollination. Here, we focused on the foraging behaviour of honey bees and bumble bees in sweet cherry orchards. In addition, we studied the influence of bee diversity and abundance on the foraging behaviour of honey bees and bumble bees. Honey bees were found to visit fewer flowers than bumble bees. Bumble bees also showed a higher probability of changing trees between rows than honey bees. Both visitation rate and probability of row changes of honey bees increased with bumble bee diversity and with bumble bee abundance. We also found that the probability of row changes of honey bees increased with increasing bumble bee abundance. These effects of bumble bee richness and abundance on the pollination behaviour of honey bees can improve the pollination performance of honey bees in crops that depend on cross pollination. Our results highlight the higher pollination performance of bumble bees and the facilitative effect of wild pollinators to crop pollination.     

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.     

Co-flowering plants support diverse pollinator populations and facilitate pollinator visitation to sweet cherry crops

Many food crops depend on animal pollination to set fruit. In light of pollinator declines there is growing recognition of the need for agro-ecosystems that can sustain wild pollinator populations, ensuring fruit production and pollinator conservation into the future. One method of supporting resident wild pollinator populations within agricultural landscapes is to encourage and maintain floral diversity. However, pollinator visitation to crop plants can be affected either positively (facilitation) or negatively (competition) by the presence of co-flowering plants. The strength and direction of the facilitative/competitive relationship is driven by multiple factors, including floral abundance and the degree of overlap in pollinator visitation networks. We sought to determine how plant-pollinator networks, within and surrounding sweet cherry (Prunus avium) orchards, change across key time points during the cherry flowering season, in three growing regions in Australia. We found significant overlap in the suite of flower visitors, with seven taxa (including native bees, flies, hoverflies and introduced honey bees, Apis mellifera) observed visiting cherry and other co-flowering species within the orchard and/or the wider surrounding matrix. We found evidence of pollinator facilitation with significantly more total cherry flower visits with increasing percent cover of co-flowering plants within the wider landscape matrix and increased visitation to cherry by honey bees with increasing co-flowering plant richness within the orchard. During the cherry flowering period there was a significant positive relationship between pollinator richness on cherry and pollinator richness on co-flowering plants within the orchard and the area of native vegetation surrounding orchards. Outside of the crop flowering season, co-flowering plants within the orchard and wider landscape matrix supported the same pollinator taxa that were recorded visiting cherry when the crop was flowering. This shows wild plants help support the pollinators important to crop pollination, outside of the crop flowering season, highlighting the role of co-flowering plants within pollinator-dependent cropping systems.     

Improvement of almond production using Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Mediterranean conditions

Almond trees are one of the most important crops in the Balearic Islands. The pollination of almonds is limited to the activity of insects, and cross‐pollination is necessary for fruit development. Currently, honey bees and wild bee populations are declining considerably due to multiple causes, such as the use of pesticides, diseases and habitat loss. An alternative to increase the almond production is the use of commercial pollinators. In this long‐term (3 years) study, the effect of the introduction of Bombus terrestris colonies on almond production was evaluated in two orchards. Two experimental designs were carried out to study the best management of this pollinator. For 2 years, all bumble bee colonies were placed in the middle of the plot and during the last year, the bumble bee colonies were distributed homogenously in the plot. Fruit set and the foraging behaviour of bumble bees during the blossoming period was determined, and the effect of different environmental variables on the visitation rate of bumble bees was assessed by means of a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Moreover, for the first time, the spatial distribution of fruit set was evaluated. Our results show that fruit set was significantly higher in the fields where B. terrestris had been introduced than in the control plots. This increased production resulted in a positive economic balance for the farmer. Moreover, bumble bees showed to prefer trees in a southwest orientation that were close to their colony. The activity of bumble bees showed to be significantly influenced by wind speed (the higher the speed the more flowers are visited by B. terrestris) and time after flowering (visitation rate decreased with days after flowering). In order to improve its management and obtain the highest possible almond production, it is important to understand the activity and behaviour of this pollinator.     

The Potential Influence of Bumble Bee Visitation on Foraging Behaviors and Assemblages of Honey Bees on Squash Flowers in Highland Agricultural Ecosystems

Bee species interactions can benefit plant pollination through synergistic effects and complementary effects, or can be of detriment to plant pollination through competition effects by reducing visitation by effective pollinators. Since specific bee interactions influence the foraging performance of bees on flowers, they also act as drivers to regulate the assemblage of flower visitors. We selected squash (Cucurbita pepo L.) and its pollinators as a model system to study the foraging response of honey bees to the occurrence of bumble bees at two types of sites surrounded by a high amount of natural habitats (≥ 58% of land cover) and a low amount of natural habitats (≤ 12% of land cover) in a highland agricultural ecosystem in China. At the individual level, we measured the elapsed time from the departure of prior pollinator(s) to the arrival of another pollinator, the selection of honey bees for flowers occupied by bumble bees, and the length of time used by honey bees to explore floral resources at the two types of sites. At the community level, we explored the effect of bumble bee visitation on the distribution patterns of honey bees on squash flowers. Conclusively, bumble bee visitation caused an increase in elapsed time before flowers were visited again by a honey bee, a behavioral avoidance by a newly-arriving honey bee to select flowers occupied by bumble bees, and a shortened length of time the honey bee takes to examine and collect floral resources. The number of overall bumble bees on squash flowers was the most important factor explaining the difference in the distribution patterns of honey bees at the community level. Furthermore, decline in the number of overall bumble bees on the squash flowers resulted in an increase in the number of overall honey bees. Therefore, our study suggests that bee interactions provide an opportunity to enhance the resilience of ecosystem pollination services against the decline in pollinator diversity.     

Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses

One of the values of biodiversity is that it may provide 'biological insurance' for services currently rendered by domesticated species or technology. We used crop pollination as a model system, and investigated whether the loss of a domesticated pollinator (the honey bee) could be compensated for by native, wild bee species. We measured pollination provided to watermelon crops at 23 farms in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA, and used a simulation model to separate the pollen provided by honey bees and native bees. Simulation results predict that native bees alone provide sufficient pollination at > 90% of the farms studied. Furthermore, empirical total pollen deposition at flowers was strongly, significantly correlated with native bee visitation but not with honey bee visitation. The honey bee is currently undergoing extensive die-offs because of Colony Collapse Disorder. We predict that in our region native bees will buffer potential declines in agricultural production because of honey bee losses.     

Bee Species Diversity Enhances Productivity and Stability in a Perennial Crop

Wild bees provide important pollination services to agroecoystems, but the mechanisms which underlie their contribution to ecosystem functioning—and, therefore, their importance in maintaining and enhancing these services—remain unclear. We evaluated several mechanisms through which wild bees contribute to crop productivity, the stability of pollinator visitation, and the efficiency of individual pollinators in a highly bee-pollination dependent plant, highbush blueberry. We surveyed the bee community (through transect sampling and pan trapping) and measured pollination of both open- and singly-visited flowers. We found that the abundance of managed honey bees, Apis mellifera, and wild-bee richness were equally important in describing resulting open pollination. Wild-bee richness was a better predictor of pollination than wild-bee abundance. We also found evidence suggesting pollinator visitation (and subsequent pollination) are stabilized through the differential response of bee taxa to weather (i.e., response diversity). Variation in the individual visit efficiency of A. mellifera and the southeastern blueberry bee, Habropoda laboriosa, a wild specialist, was not associated with changes in the pollinator community. Our findings add to a growing literature that diverse pollinator communities provide more stable and productive ecosystem services.     

Relationships between wild bees,hoverflies and pollination success in apple orchards with different landscape contexts

相似文献   

Orchard pollination in Capitol Reef National Park,Utah, USA. Honey bees or native bees?

Capitol Reef National Park in central Utah, USA surrounds 22 managed fruit orchards started over a century ago by Mormon pioneers. Honey bees are imported for pollination, although the area in which the Park is embedded has over 700 species of native bees, many of which are potential orchard pollinators. We studied the visitation of native bees to apple, pear, apricot, and sweet cherry over 2 years. Thirty species of bees visited the flowers but, except for pear flowers, most were uncommon compared to honey bees. Evidence that honey bees prevented native bees from foraging on orchard crop flowers was equivocal: generally, honey bee and native bee visitation rates to the flowers were not negatively correlated, nor were native bee visitation rates positively correlated with distance of orchards from honey bee hives. Conversely, competition was tentatively suggested by much larger numbers of honey bees than natives on the flowers of apples, apricots and cherry; and by the large increase of native bees on pears, where honey bee numbers were low. At least one-third of the native bee species visiting the flowers are potential pollinators, including cavity-nesting species such as Osmia lignaria propinqua, currently managed for small orchard pollination in the US, plus several fossorial species, including one rosaceous flower specialist (Andrena milwaukiensis). We suggest that gradual withdrawal of honey bees from the Park would help conserve native bee populations without decreasing orchard crop productivity, and would serve as a demonstration of the commercial value of native pollinators.     

Diverse pollinator communities enhance plant reproductive success

Understanding the functional consequences of biodiversity loss is a major goal of ecology. Animal-mediated pollination is an essential ecosystem function and service provided to mankind. However, little is known how pollinator diversity could affect pollination services. Using a substitutive design, we experimentally manipulated functional group (FG) and species richness of pollinator communities to investigate their consequences on the reproductive success of an obligate out-crossing model plant species, Raphanus sativus. Both fruit and seed set increased with pollinator FG richness. Furthermore, seed set increased with species richness in pollinator communities composed of a single FG. However, in multiple-FG communities, highest species richness resulted in slightly reduced pollination services compared with intermediate species richness. Our analysis indicates that the presence of social bees, which showed roughly four times higher visitation rates than solitary bees or hoverflies, was an important factor contributing to the positive pollinator diversity–pollination service relationship, in particular, for fruit set. Visitation rate at different daytimes, and less so among flower heights, varied among social bees, solitary bees and hoverflies, indicating a niche complementarity among these pollinator groups. Our study demonstrates enhanced pollination services of diverse pollinator communities at the plant population level and suggests that both the niche complementarity and the presence of specific taxa in a pollinator community drive this positive relationship.     

Plant diversity increases spatio‐temporal niche complementarity in plant‐pollinator interactions

Ongoing biodiversity decline impairs ecosystem processes, including pollination. Flower visitation, an important indicator of pollination services, is influenced by plant species richness. However, the spatio‐temporal responses of different pollinator groups to plant species richness have not yet been analyzed experimentally. Here, we used an experimental plant species richness gradient to analyze plant–pollinator interactions with an unprecedented spatio‐temporal resolution. We observed four pollinator functional groups (honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, and hoverflies) in experimental plots at three different vegetation strata between sunrise and sunset. Visits were modified by plant species richness interacting with time and space. Furthermore, the complementarity of pollinator functional groups in space and time was stronger in species‐rich mixtures. We conclude that high plant diversity should ensure stable pollination services, mediated via spatio‐temporal niche complementarity in flower visitation.     

Managed bumble bees increase flower visitation but not fruit weight in polytunnel strawberry crops

Animal-mediated pollination is essential for the production and quality of fruits and seeds of many crops consumed by humans. However, crop pollination services might be compromised when wild pollinators are scarce. Managed pollinators are commonly used in crops to supplement such services with the assumption that they will enhance crop yield. However, information on the spatiotemporal pollinator-dependence of crops is still limited. We assessed the contribution of commercial bumble bee colonies compared to the available pollinator community on strawberry (‘Fortuna’ variety) flower visitation and strawberry quality across a landscape gradient of agricultural intensification (i.e. polytunnel berry crop cover). We used colonies of bumble bees in winter and in spring, i.e. when few and most wild pollinators are in their flight period, respectively. The placement of colonies increased visits of bumble bees to strawberry flowers, especially in winter. The use of bumble bee colonies did not affect flower visitation by other insects, mainly honey bees, hoverflies and other Diptera. Flower visitation by both honey bees and wild insects did not vary between seasons and was unrelated to the landscape gradient of berry crop cover. Strawberries were of the highest quality (i.e. weight) when insect-mediated pollination was allowed, and their quality was positively related to wild flower visitors in winter but not in spring. However, increased visits to strawberry flowers by managed bumble bees and honey bees had no effect on strawberry weight. Our results suggest that the pollination services producing high quality strawberry fruits are provided by the flower visitor community present in the study region without the need to use managed bumble bees.     

Variation in composition of two bumble bee species across communities affects nectar robbing but maintains pollinator visitation rate to an alpine plant,Salvia przewalskii

1. In many flowering plants, bumble bees may forage as both pollinators and nectar robbers. This mixed foraging behaviour may be influenced by community context and consequently, potentially affect pollination of the focal plant. 2. Salvia przewalskii is both pollinated and robbed exclusively by bumble bees. In the present study area, it was legitimately visited by two species of bumble bees with different tongue length, Bombus friseanus and Bombus religiosus, but it was only robbed by Bombus friseanus, the shorter‐tongued bumble bee. The intensity of nectar robbing and pollinator visitation rate to the plant were investigated across 26 communities in the Hengduan Mountains in East Himalaya during a 2‐year project. For each of these communities, the floral diversity, and the population size and floral resource of S. przewalskii were quantified. The abundances of the two bumble bee species were also recorded. 3. Both nectar robbing and pollinator visitation rate were influenced by floral diversity. However, pollinator visitation rate was not affected by nectar robbing. The results revealed that relative abundance of the two bumble bee species significantly influenced the incidence of nectar robbing but not the pollinator visitation rate. Increased abundance of B. religiosus, the legitimate visitors, exacerbated nectar robbing, possibly by causing B. friseanus to shift to robbing; however, pollinator visitation remained at a relatively high level. 4. The results may help to explain the persistence of both nectar robbing and pollination, and suggest that, in comparison to pollination, nectar robbing is a more unstable event in a community.     

Proximity to wildflower strips did not boost crop pollination on small,diversified farms harboring diverse wild bees

The yield of many agricultural crops depends on pollination services provided by wild and managed bees, many of which are experiencing declines due to factors such as reductions in floral resources. Thus, improving pollinator habitat on farmlands using management strategies like planting wildflower strips is vital for wild bee conservation and sustainable crop pollination. Yet, few studies have examined whether and at what spatial scales wildflower strips enhance crop pollination and yields, and most research has been conducted in large-scale commercial agriculture. Therefore, we investigated the effects of wildflower strips on crop pollination on small, diversified farms (i.e., those growing a variety of crop species) where wild bee diversity and abundance is predicted to be comparatively high. Over three years, on four diversified farms in Montana USA, we tested the hypothesis that distance (20, 60, and 180 m) of crops from native perennial wildflower strips planted alongside crop fields affected wild bee visitation, pollination, and yields of squash and sunflower crop plants. We found that distance to wildflower strips did not affect bee visitation or pollination in crops. Squash yield was pollen-limited in the growing season prior to wildflower strip establishment, and in one of the two years after wildflower strip establishment, but proximity to wildflower strips did not influence the magnitude of pollen limitation. Sunflower seed production was not pollen-limited in any year. Our findings demonstrate that even on diverse farms with wildflower strips and a demonstrated high diversity of bees, some crops do not necessarily receive maximum pollination, regardless of distance from the wildflower strips. However, the value of wildflower strips for supporting wild bee diversity, and other ecological or economic benefits, needs consideration for a full understanding of this pollinator habitat management strategy.     

Plant evolution can mediate negative effects from honey bees on wild pollinators

1. Pollinators are introduced to agroecosystems to provide pollination services. Introductions of managed pollinators often promote ecosystem services, but it remains largely unknown whether they also affect evolutionary mutualisms between wild pollinators and plants.
2. Here, we developed a model to assess effects of managed honey bees on mutualisms between plants and wild pollinators. Our model tracked how interactions among wild pollinators and honey bees affected pollinator and plant populations.
3. We show that when managed honey bees have a competitive advantage over wild pollinators, or a greater carrying capacity, the honey bees displace the wild pollinator. This leads to reduced plant density because plants benefit less by visits from honey bees than wild pollinators that coevolved with the plants.
4. As wild pollinators are displaced, plants evolve by increasing investment in traits that are attractive for honey bees but not wild pollinators. This evolutionary switch promotes wild pollinator displacement. However, higher mutualism investment costs by the plant to the honey bee can promote pollinator coexistence.
5. Our results show plant evolution can promote displacement of wild pollinators by managed honey bees, while limited plant evolution may lead to pollinator coexistence. More broadly, effects of honey bees on wild pollinators in agroecosystems, and effects on ecosystem services, may depend on the capacity of plant populations to evolve.

     

Seasonal complementary in pollinators of soft-fruit crops

Understanding the relative contributions of wild and managed pollinators, and the functional contributions made by a diverse pollinator community, is essential to the maintenance of yields in the 75% of our crops that benefit from insect pollination. We describe a field study and pollinator exclusion experiments conducted on two soft-fruit crops in a system with both wild and managed pollinators. We test whether fruit quality and quantity is limited by pollination, and whether different pollinating insects respond differently to varying weather conditions. Both strawberries and raspberries produced fewer marketable fruits when insects were excluded, demonstrating dependence on insect pollinators. Raspberries had a short flowering season which coincided with peak abundance of bees, and attracted many bees per flower. In contrast, strawberries had a much longer flowering season and appeared to be much less attractive to pollinators, so that ensuring adequate pollination is likely to be more challenging. The proportion of high-quality strawberries was positively related to pollinator abundance, suggesting that yield was limited by inadequate pollination on some farms. The relative abundance of different pollinator taxa visiting strawberries changed markedly through the season, demonstrating seasonal complementarity. Insect visitors responded differently to changing weather conditions suggesting that diversity can reduce the risk of pollination service shortfalls. For example, flies visited the crop flowers in poor weather and at the end of the flowering season when other pollinators were scarce, and so may provide a unique functional contribution. Understanding how differences between pollinator groups can enhance pollination services to crops strengthens the case for multiple species management. We provide evidence for the link between increased diversity and function in real crop systems, highlighting the risks of replacing all pollinators with managed alternatives.     

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.     

Red mason bees cannot compete with honey bees for floral resources in a cage experiment

Intensive beekeeping to mitigate crop pollination deficits and habitat loss may cause interspecific competition between bees. Studies show negative correlations between flower visitation of honey bees (Apis mellifera) and wild bees, but effects on the reproduction of wild bees were not proven. Likely reasons are that honey bees can hardly be excluded from controls and wild bee nests are generally difficult to detect in field experiments. The goal of this study was to investigate whether red mason bees (Osmia bicornis) compete with honey bees in cages in order to compare the reproduction of red mason bees under different honey bee densities. Three treatments were applied, each replicated in four cages of 18 m³ with 38 red mason bees in all treatments and 0, 100, and 300 honey bees per treatment with 10–20% being foragers. Within the cages, the flower visitation and interspecific displacements from flowers were observed. Niche breadths and resource overlaps of both bee species were calculated, and the reproduction of red mason bees was measured. Red mason bees visited fewer flowers when honey bees were present. Niche breadth of red mason bees decreased with increasing honey bee density while resource overlaps remained constant. The reproduction of red mason bees decreased in cages with honey bees. In conclusion, our experimental results show that in small and isolated flower patches, wild bees can temporarily suffer from competition with honey bees. Further research should aim to test for competition on small and isolated flower patches in real landscapes.     

Spatial variability in a plant–pollinator community across a continuous habitat: high heterogeneity in the face of apparent uniformity

Large‐scale spatial variability in plant–pollinator communities (e.g. along geographic gradients, across different landscapes) is relatively well understood. However, we know much less about how these communities vary at small scales within a uniform landscape. Plants are sessile and highly sensitive to microhabitat conditions, whereas pollinators are highly mobile and, for the most part, display generalist feeding habits. Therefore, we expect plants to show greater spatial variability than pollinators. We analysed the spatial heterogeneity of a community of flowering plants and their pollinators in 40 plots across a 40‐km² area within an uninterrupted Mediterranean scrubland. We recorded 3577 pollinator visits to 49 plant species. The pollinator community (170 species) was strongly dominated by honey bees (71.8% of the visits recorded). Flower and pollinator communities showed similar beta‐diversity, indicating that spatial variability was similar in the two groups. We used path analysis to establish the direct and indirect effects of flower community distribution and honey bee visitation rate (a measure of the use of floral resources by this species) on the spatial distribution of the pollinator community. Wild pollinator abundance was positively related to flower abundance. Wild pollinator visitation rate was negatively related to flower abundance, suggesting that floral resources were not limiting. Pollinator and flower richness were positively related. Pollinator species composition was weakly related to flower species composition, reflecting the generalist nature of flower–pollinator interactions and the opportunistic nature of pollinator flower choices. Honey bee visitation rate did not affect the distribution of the wild pollinator community. Overall, we show that, in spite of the apparent physiognomic uniformity, both flowers and pollinators display high levels of heterogeneity, resulting in a mosaic of idiosyncratic local communities. Our results provide a measure of the background of intrinsic heterogeneity within a uniform habitat, with potential consequences on low‐scale ecosystem function and microevolutionary patterns.