Contrasting responses of bumble bees to feeding conspecifics on their familiar and unfamiliar flowers

Animals exploiting their familiar food items often avoid spatio-temporal aggregation with others by avoiding scents, less rewarding areas or visual contacts, thereby minimizing competition or interference when resources are replenished slowly in patches. When animals are searching or assessing available food sources, however, they may benefit from reducing sampling costs by following others at food sites. Therefore, animals may adjust their responses to others depending on their familiarity with foraging situations. Here, we conducted field experiments to test whether nectar-collecting bumble bees make this adjustment. We allowed free-foraging bees to choose between two inflorescences, one occupied by a conspecific bee and another unoccupied. When bees were presented with flowers of a familiar type, they avoided occupied inflorescences. In contrast, bees visited an occupied inflorescence when the flower type was unfamiliar. To our knowledge, this is the first report suggesting that animals adjust their responses to feeding conspecifics depending on their familiarity with food sources. Such behavioural flexibilities should allow foragers to both explore and exploit their environments efficiently.     

Effects of recent experience on foraging decisions by bumble bees

The temporal and spatial scales employed by foraging bees in sampling their environment and making foraging decisions should depend both on the limits of bumble bee memory and on the spatial and temporal pattern of rewards in the habitat. We analyzed data from previous experiments to determine how recent foraging experience by bumble bees affects their flight distances to subsequent flowers. A single visit to a flower as sufficient to affect the flight distance to the next flower. However, longer sequences of two or three visits had an additional effect on the subsequent flight distance of individual foragers. This suggests that bumble bees can integrate information from at least three flowers for making a subsequent foraging decision. The existence of memory for floral characteristics at least at this scale may have significance for floral selection in natural environments.     

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.     

Does the Flower Constancy of Bumble Bees Reflect Foraging Economics?

We examined the effects of floral reward level and spatial arrangement on the propensity of bumble bees to exhibit flower constancy. In three separate experiments, we compared the flower constancy of bees on dimorphic arrays of blue and yellow flowers that differed either in reward concentration, reward volume, or inter‐flower distance. Overall, flower choice patterns varied among bees, ranging from random selection to complete constancy. When flowers contained greater reward volumes and were spaced farther apart, bees showed less flower constancy and more moves to closely neighbouring flowers. Changes in reward concentration had no effect on flower constancy; however, more dilute rewards produced shorter flight times between flowers. In addition, there was a strong positive relationship between degree of flower constancy and net rate of energy gain when flowers were spaced farther apart, indicating that constant bees were more economic foragers than inconstant bees. Together, these results support the view that the flower constancy of pollinators reflects an economic foraging decision.     

A model of resource partitioning between foraging bees based on learning

Central place foraging pollinators tend to develop multi-destination routes (traplines) to exploit patchily distributed plant resources. While the formation of traplines by individual pollinators has been studied in detail, how populations of foragers use resources in a common area is an open question, difficult to address experimentally. We explored conditions for the emergence of resource partitioning among traplining bees using agent-based models built from experimental data of bumblebees foraging on artificial flowers. In the models, bees learn to develop routes as a consequence of feedback loops that change their probabilities of moving between flowers. While a positive reinforcement of movements leading to rewarding flowers is sufficient for the emergence of resource partitioning when flowers are evenly distributed, the addition of a negative reinforcement of movements leading to unrewarding flowers is necessary when flowers are patchily distributed. In environments with more complex spatial structures, the negative experiences of individual bees on flowers favour spatial segregation and efficient collective foraging. Our study fills a major gap in modelling pollinator behaviour and constitutes a unique tool to guide future experimental programs.     

Seeing is believing: information content and behavioural response to visual and chemical cues

Predator avoidance and foraging often pose conflicting demands. Animals can decrease mortality risk searching for predators, but searching decreases foraging time and hence intake. We used this principle to investigate how prey should use information to detect, assess and respond to predation risk from an optimal foraging perspective. A mathematical model showed that solitary bees should increase flower examination time in response to predator cues and that the rate of false alarms should be negatively correlated with the relative value of the flower explored. The predatory ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, and the harmless ant, Polyrhachis dives, differ in the profile of volatiles they emit and in their visual appearance. As predicted, the solitary bee Nomia strigata spent more time examining virgin flowers in presence of predator cues than in their absence. Furthermore, the proportion of flowers rejected decreased from morning to noon, as the relative value of virgin flowers increased. In addition, bees responded differently to visual and chemical cues. While chemical cues induced bees to search around flowers, bees detecting visual cues hovered in front of them. These strategies may allow prey to identify the nature of visual cues and to locate the source of chemical cues.     

Floral visitors and ant scent marks: noticed but not used?

1. Bee behaviour when visiting flowers is mediated by diverse chemical cues and signals, from the flower itself and from previous visitors to the flower. Flowers recently visited by bees and hoverflies may be rejected for a period of time by subsequent bee visitors. 2. Nectar‐thieving ants also commonly visit flowers and could potentially influence the foraging decisions of bees, through the detection of ant trail pheromones or footprint hydrocarbons. 3. Here we demonstrate that, while naÏve bumblebees in laboratory trials are not inherently repelled by ant scent marks, they can learn to use them as informative signals while foraging on artificial flowers. 4. To test for similar activity in the wild, visitor behaviours at the flowers of Digitalis purpurea Linnaeus, Bupleurum fruticosum Linnaeus, and Brassica juncea (Linnaeus) Czernajew were compared between flowers that had been in contact with ants and those that had not. No differences were found between the two treatments. 5. The use of chemical foraging cues by bees would appear to be strongly dependent on previous experience and in the context of these plant species bees did not associate ant scent mark cues with foraging costs.     

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

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

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.     

Radar Tracking and Motion-Sensitive Cameras on Flowers Reveal the Development of Pollinator Multi-Destination Routes over Large Spatial Scales

Central place foragers, such as pollinating bees, typically develop circuits (traplines) to visit multiple foraging sites in a manner that minimizes overall travel distance. Despite being taxonomically widespread, these routing behaviours remain poorly understood due to the difficulty of tracking the foraging history of animals in the wild. Here we examine how bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) develop and optimise traplines over large spatial scales by setting up an array of five artificial flowers arranged in a regular pentagon (50 m side length) and fitted with motion-sensitive video cameras to determine the sequence of visitation. Stable traplines that linked together all the flowers in an optimal sequence were typically established after a bee made 26 foraging bouts, during which time only about 20 of the 120 possible routes were tried. Radar tracking of selected flights revealed a dramatic decrease by 80% (ca. 1500 m) of the total travel distance between the first and the last foraging bout. When a flower was removed and replaced by a more distant one, bees engaged in localised search flights, a strategy that can facilitate the discovery of a new flower and its integration into a novel optimal trapline. Based on these observations, we developed and tested an iterative improvement heuristic to capture how bees could learn and refine their routes each time a shorter route is found. Our findings suggest that complex dynamic routing problems can be solved by small-brained animals using simple learning heuristics, without the need for a cognitive map.     

Traplining in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens): a foraging strategy’s ontogeny and the importance of spatial reference memory in short-range foraging

To test the relative importance of long-term and working spatial memories in short-range foraging in bumblebees, we compared the performance of two groups of bees. One group foraged in a stable array of six flowers for 40 foraging bouts, thereby enabling it to establish a long-term memory of the array, and adjust its spatial movements accordingly. The other group was faced with an array that changed between (but not within) foraging bouts, and thus had only access to a working memory of the flowers that had been visited. Bees in the stable array started out sampling a variety of routes, but their tendency to visit flowers in a repeatable, stable order (“traplining”) increased drastically with experience. These bees used shorter routes and converged on four popular paths. However, these routes were mainly formed through linking pairs of flowers by near-neighbour movements, rather than attempting to minimize overall travel distance. Individuals had variations to a primary sequence, where some bees used a major sequence most often, followed by a minor less used route, and others used two different routes with equal frequency. Even though bees foraging in the spatially randomized array had access to both spatial working memory and scent marks, this manipulation greatly disrupted foraging efficiency, mainly via an increase in revisitation to previously emptied flowers and substantially longer search times. Hence, a stable reference frame greatly improves foraging even for bees in relatively small arrays of flowers.     

Foraging strategies of insects for gathering nectar and pollen, and implications for plant ecology and evolution

The majority of species of flowering plants rely on pollination by insects, so that their reproductive success and in part their population structure are determined by insect behaviour. The foraging behaviour of insect pollinators is flexible and complex, because efficient collection of nectar or pollen is no simple matter. Each flower provides a variable but generally small reward that is often hidden, flowers are patchily distributed in time and space, and are erratically depleted of rewards by other foragers. Insects that specialise in visiting flowers have evolved an array of foraging strategies that act to improve their efficiency, which in turn determine the reproductive success of the plants that they visit. This review attempts a synthesis of the recent literature on selectivity in pollinator foraging behaviour, in terms of the species, patch and individual flowers that they choose to visit.

The variable nature of floral resources necessitate foraging behaviour based upon flexible learning, so that foragers can respond to the pattern of rewards that they encounter. Fidelity to particular species allows foragers to learn appropriate handling skills and so reduce handling times, but may also be favoured by use of a search image to detect flowers. The rewards received are also used to determine the spatial patterns of searches; distance and direction of flights are adjusted so that foragers tend to remain within rewarding patches and depart swiftly from unrewarding ones. The distribution of foragers among patchy resources generally conforms to the expectations of two simple optimal foraging models, the ideal free distribution and the marginal value theorem.

Insects are able to learn to discriminate among flowers of their preferred species on the basis of subtle differences in floral morphology. They may discriminate upon the basis of flower size, age, sex or symmetry and so choose the more rewarding flowers. Some insects are also able to distinguish and reject depleted flowers on the basis of ephemeral odours left by previous visitors. These odours have recently been implicated as a mechanism involved in interspecific interactions between foragers.

From the point of view of a plant reliant upon insect pollination, the behaviour of its pollinators (and hence its reproductive success) is likely to vary according to the rewards offered, the size and complexity of floral displays used to advertise their location, the distribution of conspecific and of rewards offered by other plant species, and the abundance and behaviour of other flower visitors.     

Honeybee (Apis mellifera ligustica) Response to Differences in Handling Time, Rewards and Flower Colours

Free flying honeybees were tested outdoors on blue–white and blue–yellow dimorphic artificial flower patches to examine the influence of reward difference, flower handling‐time difference and flower colour choice on foraging decisions. We employed different flower‐well depths to vary handling times (costs), and differences in sucrose molarity to vary reward quality. Tests were performed with 2 and 6 μl rewards to vary quantity. We show that when handling time is correlated with flower‐colour morphs on a pedicellate artificial flower patch, a honeybee's foraging behaviour is dependent on the flower colours used in the choice tests. This supports a honeybee foraging model where constraints are a significant factor in decision making. Bees visiting blue–yellow flower patches exhibited flower constancy to colour, where they restricted most visits to a single flower colour, some bees to blue and others to yellow, irrespective of handing time differences. When offered a choice of equally rewarding blue or white flowers, bees were not constrained by flower colour and chose to visit flowers with a lower handling time. When reward molarity varied with well depth between blue and white flowers, foragers chose shallow‐well flowers (short‐handling time) with a smaller net harvest rate over deep‐well flowers (long‐handling time) with a greater net harvest rate. Results using the blue–white dimorphic flower patch suggest that when foraging options simultaneously involve reward and handling‐time choices, honeybee forager behaviour is inconsistent with an absolute method of evaluating profit.     

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.     

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

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

Getting to the start line: how bumblebees and honeybees are visually guided towards their first floral contact

Much of the literature on foraging behaviour in bees focuses on what they learn after they have had rewarded experience with flowers. This review focuses on how honeybees and bumblebees are drawn to candidate food sources in the first place: the foundation on which learning is built. Prior to rewarded foraging experience, flower-naïve bumblebees and honeybees rely heavily on visual cues to discover their first flower. This review lists methodological issues that surround the study of flower-naïve behaviour and describes technological advances. The role of distinct visual properties of flowers in attracting bees is considered: colour, floral size, patterning and social cues. The research reviewed is multi-disciplinary and takes the perspectives of both the bees and the plants they visit. Several avenues for future research are proposed.     

Onset of morning activity in bumblebee foragers under natural low light conditions

Foraging on flowers in low light at dusk and dawn comes at an additional cost for insect pollinators with diurnal vision. Nevertheless, some species are known to be frequently active at these times. To explore how early and under which light levels colonies of bumblebees, Bombus terrestris, initiate their foraging activity, we tracked foragers of different body sizes using RFID over 5 consecutive days during warm periods of the flowering season. Bees that left the colony at lower light levels and earlier in the day were larger in size. This result extends the evidence for alloethism in bumblebees and shows that foragers differ in their task specialization depending on body size. By leaving the colony earlier to find and exploit flowers in low light, larger‐sized foragers are aided by their more sensitive eyes and can effectively increase their contributions to the colony''s food influx. The decision to leave the colony early seems to be further facilitated by knowledge about profitable food resources in specific locations. We observed that experience accrued over many foraging flights determined whether a bee started foraging under lower light levels and earlier in the morning. Larger‐sized bees were not more experienced than smaller‐sized bees, confirming earlier observations of wide size ranges among active foragers. Overall, we found that most foragers left at higher light levels when they could see well and fly faster. Nevertheless, a small proportion of foragers left the colony shortly after the onset of dawn when light levels were below 10 lux. Our observations suggest that bumblebee colonies have the potential to balance the benefits of deploying large‐sized or experienced foragers during dawn against the risks and costs of foraging under low light by regulating the onset of their activity at different stages of the colony''s life cycle and in changing environmental conditions.     

A Simple Iterative Model Accurately Captures Complex Trapline Formation by Bumblebees Across Spatial Scales and Flower Arrangements

Pollinating bees develop foraging circuits (traplines) to visit multiple flowers in a manner that minimizes overall travel distance, a task analogous to the travelling salesman problem. We report on an in-depth exploration of an iterative improvement heuristic model of bumblebee traplining previously found to accurately replicate the establishment of stable routes by bees between flowers distributed over several hectares. The critical test for a model is its predictive power for empirical data for which the model has not been specifically developed, and here the model is shown to be consistent with observations from different research groups made at several spatial scales and using multiple configurations of flowers. We refine the model to account for the spatial search strategy of bees exploring their environment, and test several previously unexplored predictions. We find that the model predicts accurately 1) the increasing propensity of bees to optimize their foraging routes with increasing spatial scale; 2) that bees cannot establish stable optimal traplines for all spatial configurations of rewarding flowers; 3) the observed trade-off between travel distance and prioritization of high-reward sites (with a slight modification of the model); 4) the temporal pattern with which bees acquire approximate solutions to travelling salesman-like problems over several dozen foraging bouts; 5) the instability of visitation schedules in some spatial configurations of flowers; 6) the observation that in some flower arrays, bees'' visitation schedules are highly individually different; 7) the searching behaviour that leads to efficient location of flowers and routes between them. Our model constitutes a robust theoretical platform to generate novel hypotheses and refine our understanding about how small-brained insects develop a representation of space and use it to navigate in complex and dynamic environments.     

Pollination of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Machaerium opacum</Emphasis> (Fabaceae) by nocturnal and diurnal bees

With plants whose flowers open at night and stay open during the day, nocturnal pollinators may exploit floral resources before diurnal competitors. Moths, bats, and beetles are the most familiar nocturnal pollinators, whereas nocturnal bees as pollinators remain poorly understood. The common Cerrado tree Machaerium opacum (Fabaceae) has white and strongly scented melittophilous flowers, which first open at the night and remain open during the day and, thus, have the potential to be visited by both nocturnal and diurnal bees. We asked: (1) what is the plant’s breeding system? (2) when during the night do the flowers open? (3) what are the visual and olfactory floral cues? and (4) which nocturnal/diurnal bees visit and pollinate the flowers? We show that M. opacum is self-incompatible. Its flowers open synchronously at 03:30 h, produce nectar exclusively at night, and have an explosive mechanism of pollen presentation. The flowers have pure white petals, release strong scents during anthesis, and are pollinated by nocturnal and diurnal bees. We recorded four nocturnal and 17 diurnal species as flower visitors, with females of nocturnal species of Ptiloglossa (Colletidae) being the most abundant. After an initial pollen-releasing visit, only a minor amount of pollen remains in a flower. Several floral traits favor visits by nocturnal bees: (1) night-time flower opening, (2) nectar production at night, (3) almost complete pollen release during the first flower visit, and (4) pure white petals and strong odor production prior to sunrise, facilitating visual and olfactory detection of flowers when light is dim.     

Effects of Experience on Short‐ and Long‐term Foraging Performance in Bumblebees

Honeybees in natural settings show a gradual increase in foraging performance similar to the general pattern of lifetime performance seen in a wide variety of animals including humans. To quantify the factors contributing to such gradual increase in foraging success, we studied bumblebees foraging on pepper plants inside a greenhouse. This allowed us to combine the global measure of the net rate of food delivery to the hive with a detailed examination of bees’ performance at flowers over time. Although bees exhibited short‐term improvements in foraging ability during their first few foraging trips, we did not observe the predicted long‐term increase in performance over days. Our results suggest that a variety of flower‐handling tasks, flower choice and movements between plants can be learned quickly under the simple greenhouse settings. The long‐term increase in performance under natural settings may be caused by factors including spatial orientation and locating the best plant species, flower patches and individual plants over a large area.