Pollen foraging by bumblebees: Foraging patterns and efficiency on Lupinus polyphyllus

Summary Bumblebees foraging on vertical inflorescences start near the bottom and work upward, behavior commonly interpreted as a response to the greater amounts of nectar available in lower flowers. Lupinus polyphyllus, which produces no nectar, has more pollen available in upper flowers. Although bees are probably unable to detect this gradient, since pollen is hidden from their view, they still start low and forage upward. Therefore, we concluded that the bees' tendency to forage upward on vertical inflorescences is not tied to a reward gradient. In addition, bees use only about 15% of the flowers per inflorescence, although they could be much more efficient by visiting and revisiting every flower systematically. In general, revisits would not be penalized because most flowers contain enough pollen for several visits. Optimal foraging theory may not offer an adequate explanation for such gross inefficiency.     

Foraging habitats and floral resource use by colonies of long- and short-tongued bumble bee species in an agricultural landscape with kabocha squash fields

Bumble bees pollinate and forage on flowers of crop and wild plants in agricultural landscapes. These interactions may depend on landscape patterns and bumble bee traits. We studied the abundance, colony density, and foraging range in long-tongued Bombus diversus Smith and short-tongued B. hypocrita Pérez, and evaluated their visits to flowers of wild plants and cultivated kabocha squash (Cucurbita maxima Duchesne). In forests in a farmland, B. hypocrita workers were trapped more frequently in the canopy. Full-sibs determined by nuclear microsatellite genotypes among workers collected in the farmland showed higher colony density and a larger foraging radius in B. hypocrita (30.8 km^?2 and 848 m) than in B. diversus (8.3 km^?2 and 723 m), respectively. Regarding wild plants, workers more frequently visited shallow flowers in B. hypocrita and deep flowers in B. diversus. These results suggest that bumble bees with different traits forage on different wild flowers in different habitats. Squash flowers were visited by both bumble bee species at similar frequency in the latter period of colony growth when males and new queens appeared. Composition of full-sib workers visiting squash and wild flowers did not depend on the number of collected workers of individual colonies, indicating that foraging on squash flowers was not associated with colony growth. Thus, growth and reproduction of bumble bee colonies may be supported by various wild plants and cultivated squash, respectively.     

Invasive ant (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Anoplolepis gracilipes</Emphasis>) disrupts pollination in pumpkin

Yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes (F. Smith); “YCA”) is known for its aggressive predatory ability and ability to exert exploitation competition on both native and other invasive ants via floral nectar. We argue that YCA invasion can exert both interference and exploitation competition on legitimate pollinators. In pumpkin fields (Cucurbita maxima L.) of south India, YCA infested the flowers, particularly the pistillate flowers, for nectar foraging. Pumpkin is a honey bee-mediated cross-pollinated monoecious plant that produces disproportionately very few pistillate flowers. We hypothesize that YCA presence in the flowers can affect the visitation rate and foraging time of honey bees in the flowers, the fruit set in pumpkins, and can exert predatory pressure on the honey bees if the bees linger in ant-colonized flowers. Both YCA and honey bees preferred to forage on the limited pistillate flowers in the plants. After colonizing the flowers, YCA did not retreat for hours, even upon disturbance by competitors, such as honey bees. Both the visitation frequency and the foraging time of honey bees were drastically reduced in ant-colonized flowers, and none of the ant-colonized flowers developed into fruits, suggesting that the YCA exert both an ecological and evolutionary pressure on pumpkin. The ants preyed upon about 17% of the honey bees that lingered in ant-colonized flowers, and the time the bees spent foraging predicted the fate of the bees. Exploitation competition exerted by the YCA on pumpkin may have far-reaching consequences for the pollination and productivity of this cash crop.     

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.     

Flower choice by honey bees (Apis mellifera L.): sex-phase of flowers and preferences among nectar and pollen foragers

Bees foraging for nectar should choose different inflorescences from those foraging for both pollen and nectar, if inflorescences consist of differing proportions of male and female flowers, particularly if the sex phases of the flowers differ in nectar content as well as the occurrence of pollen. This study tested this prediction using worker honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) foraging on inflorescences of Lavandula stoechas. Female flowers contained about twice the volume of nectar of male flowers. As one would predict, bees foraging for nectar only chose inflorescences with disproportionately more female flowers: time spent on the inflorescence was correlated with the number of female flowers, but not with the number of male flowers. Inflorescence size was inversely correlated with the number of female flowers, and could be used as a morphological cue by these bees. Also as predicted, workers foraging for both pollen and nectar chose inflorescences with relatively greater numbers of both male and female flowers: time spent on these inflorescences was correlated with the number of male flowers, but not with the number of females flowers. A morphological cue inversely associated with such inflorescences is the size of the bract display. Choice of flowers within inflorescences was also influenced predictably, but preferences appeared to be based upon corolla size rather than directly on sex phase.     

Pollination ecology ofOxalis violacea (Oxalidaceae) following a controlled grass fire

Vernal grass fires may encourage profuse flowering in clonal, colonies ofOxalis violacea. Long-styled colonies appear to be more floriferous than short-styled colonies and set a greater number of capsules. Individual flowers of both morphs live one or two days, change position on their respective pedicels and advertise nectar concealed at the base of the floral throat. AlthoughDiptera, Hymenoptera, andLepidoptera forage for nectar, bees (Andrenidae,Anthophoridae, Halictidae, andMegachilidae) probably make the only effective pollen transfers between the two morphs. Both male and female bees may transport pollen of both morphs and short-tongued bees (e.g.,Augochlorella spp.,Dialictus spp.) may be more common but as effective as pollinators as long-tongued bees (e.g.,Calliopsis andreniformis andHoplitis spp.). The conversion rate of flowers into capsules is only 13–17%. The spreading style in the short-styled morph is interpreted as an adaptation restricting insect-mediated, self-pollination but encouraging bee-stigma contact during nectar foraging.     

Forage quality and quantity affect red mason bees and honeybees differently in flowers of strawberry varieties

Nectar is a vital source of energy for bees and other pollinators and pollen represents the only source of protein in the diet of bees. Nectar and pollen quality and quantity can therefore affect foraging choices. Strawberry, Fragaria × ananassa (Rosaceae), is a flowering crop that requires insect pollination for the berries to develop optimally. The solitary red mason bee, Osmia bicornis L. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), occurs naturally but like the eusocial western honeybee, Apis mellifera mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), it is also a commercially reared pollinator used in strawberry production. We hypothesized that strawberry nectar and pollen quality would affect the foraging choice of these two types of bees. In this study nectar and pollen quality is represented by various levels of sugar and protein content, respectively, as well as the number of open strawberry flowers in the experimental field, would affect the foraging choice of these two types of bees. Consistent with previous studies, we found significant and major differences between strawberry varieties in proportions of sucrose in the nectar sugar and in pollen viability – a proxy for pollen protein content. All measured parameters had a significant effect on red mason bee visitation frequency. Contrary to expectations, honeybee foraging behavior was only affected by the number of open flowers and not by any of the quality parameters measured. Our findings indicate that red mason bees were capable of assessing nectar and pollen quality and prioritize accordingly. The pattern observed indicates that individual red mason bees changed foraging focus between strawberry varieties depending on whether nectar or pollen was collected. Our results suggest that targeted breeding of varieties toward high levels of nectar sugar and sucrose concentrations and high pollen protein content may increase pollination success from red mason bees and possibly other solitary bees.     

Specialised protagonists in a plant–pollinator interaction: the pollination of Blumenbachia insignis (Loasaceae)

• Analyses of resource presentation, floral morphology and pollinator behaviour are essential for understanding specialised plant‐pollinator systems. We investigated whether foraging by individual bee pollinators fits the floral morphology and functioning of Blumenbachia insignis, whose flowers are characterised by a nectar scale‐staminode complex and pollen release by thigmonastic stamen movements.
• We described pollen and nectar presentation, analysed the breeding system and the foraging strategy of bee pollinators. We determined the nectar production pattern and documented variations in the longevity of floral phases and stigmatic pollen loads of pollinator‐visited and unvisited flowers.
• Bicolletes indigoticus (Colletidae) was the sole pollinator with females revisiting flowers in staminate and pistillate phases at short intervals, guaranteeing cross‐pollen flow. Nectar stored in the nectar scale‐staminode complex had a high sugar concentration and was produced continuously in minute amounts (~0.09 μl·h^?1). Pushing the scales outward, bees took up nectar, triggering stamen movements and accelerating pollen presentation. Experimental simulation of this nectar uptake increased the number of moved stamens per hour by a factor of four. Flowers visited by pollinators received six‐fold more pollen on the stigma than unvisited flowers, had shortened staminate and pistillate phases and increased fruit and seed set.
• Flower handling and foraging by Bicolletes indigoticus were consonant with the complex flower morphology and functioning of Blumenbachia insignis. Continuous nectar production in minute quantities but at high sugar concentration influences the pollen foraging of the bees. Partitioning of resources lead to absolute flower fidelity and stereotyped foraging behaviour by the sole effective oligolectic bee pollinator.

     

Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, be explained in terms of foraging efficiency?

Bumblebee workers vary greatly in size, unlike workers of most other social bees. This variability has not been adequately explained. In many social insects, size variation is adaptive, with different-sized workers performing different tasks (alloethism). Here we established whether workers of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris (L.) (Hymenoptera; Apidae), exhibit alloethism. We quantified the size of workers engaging in foraging compared to those that remain in the nest, and confirmed that it is the larger bees that tend to forage (X±SE thorax widths 4.34±0.01 mm for nest bees and 4.93±0.02 mm for foragers). We then investigated whether large bees are better suited to foraging because they are able to transport heavier loads of food back to the nest. Both pollen and nectar loads of returning foragers were measured, demonstrating that larger bees do return with a heavier mass of forage. Foraging trip times were inversely related to bee size when collecting nectar, but were unrelated to bee size for bees collecting pollen. Overall, large bees brought back more nectar per unit time than small bees, but the rate of pollen collection appeared to be unrelated to size. The smallest foragers had a nectar foraging rate close to zero, presumably explaining why foragers tend to be large. Why might larger bees be better at foraging? Various explanations are considered: larger bees are able to forage in cooler conditions, may be able to forage over larger distances, and are perhaps also less vulnerable to predation. Conversely, small workers are presumably cheaper to produce and may be more nimble at within-nest tasks. Further research is needed to assess these possibilities. Copyright 2002 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.     

Why do honeybees reject certain flowers?

Summary Honeybees often approach flowers of Lotus corniculatus and then fly away without attempting to extract nectar. These rejected flowers contained 41% less nectar than my random sample. The accepted flowers contained 24% more nectar than my random sample. The differences among these three flower-groups were due to differences in the percent of empty flowers in each group rather than the differences in the absolute amount of nectar. Honeybees increased their foraging efficiency by accepting less empty flowers and rejecting more empty flowers than would be expected if they foraged randomly. There are two possible mechanisms for this discrimination-behavior: either the bees are smelling nectar odor or they are smelling bee scent left by previous visitors to the flower. My results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that bees are basing their decision on nectar smell and suggest that they are using bee scent as a means of identifying empty flowers.     

Trade-off between travel distance and prioritization of high-reward sites in traplining bumblebees

1.Animals exploiting renewable resource patches are faced with complex multi-location routing problems. In many species, individuals visit foraging patches in predictable sequences called traplines. However, whether and how they optimize their routes remains poorly understood.2.In this study, we demonstrate that traplining bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) make a trade-off between minimizing travel distance and prioritizing the most rewarding feeding locations.3.Individual bees trained to forage on five artificial flowers of equal reward value selected the shortest possible route as a trapline. After introducing a single highly rewarding flower to the array, they re-adjusted their routes visiting the most rewarding flower first provided the departure distance from the shortest possible route remained small (18%). When routes optimizing the initial rate of reward intake were much longer (42%), bees prioritized short travel distances.4.Under natural conditions, in which individual flowers vary in nectar productivity and replenish continuously, it might pay bees to prioritize highly rewarding locations, both to minimize the overall number of flowers to visit and to beat competitors.5.We discuss how combined memories of location and quality of resource patches could allow bees and other traplining animals to optimize their routing decisions in heterogeneous environments.     

Monitoring Flower Visitation Networks and Interactions between Pairs of Bumble Bees in a Large Outdoor Flight Cage

Pollinators, such as bees, often develop multi-location routes (traplines) to exploit subsets of flower patches within larger plant populations. How individuals establish such foraging areas in the presence of other foragers is poorly explored. Here we investigated the foraging patterns of pairs of bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) released sequentially into an 880m² outdoor flight cage containing 10 feeding stations (artificial flowers). Using motion-sensitive video cameras mounted on flowers, we mapped the flower visitation networks of both foragers, quantified their interactions and compared their foraging success over an entire day. Overall, bees that were released first (residents) travelled 37% faster and collected 77% more nectar, thereby reaching a net energy intake rate 64% higher than bees released second (newcomers). However, this prior-experience advantage decreased as newcomers became familiar with the spatial configuration of the flower array. When both bees visited the same flower simultaneously, the most frequent outcome was for the resident to evict the newcomer. On the rare occasions when newcomers evicted residents, the two bees increased their frequency of return visits to that flower. These competitive interactions led to a significant (if only partial) spatial overlap between the foraging patterns of pairs of bees. While newcomers may initially use social cues (such as olfactory footprints) to exploit flowers used by residents, either because such cues indicate higher rewards and/or safety from predation, residents may attempt to preserve their monopoly over familiar resources through exploitation and interference. We discuss how these interactions may favour spatial partitioning, thereby maximising the foraging efficiency of individuals and colonies.     

Pollination biology in Roepera (Zygophyllaceae): How flower structure and shape influence foraging activity

The foraging behavior of bees is a complex phenomenon that depends on numerous physical features of flowers. Of particular importance are accessibility of floral rewards, floral proportions, symmetry and orientation. The flowers of Roepera are characterized by the presence of staminal scales (SS), which play an important role in nectar protection. We studied two species of Roepera with different symmetry and flower orientation, which are mainly visited by honeybees (Apis mellifera). We aimed to show how the foraging behavior of honey bees is affected by the function of SS, floral symmetry and orientation. The foraging behavior was documented by video photography. Handling time, access to nectar, percentage of pollen/nectar foraging, percentage of pollen contact and pollen deposition site on the honey bee's body were assessed. The morphometric features of the honey bees and flowers were analyzed. We found that the SS restricted pollinator access to nectar. Our results indicated consistency of visitation patterns in zygomorphic, laterally oriented flowers of R. fuscata versus random patterns in actinomorphic, diversely oriented flowers of R. leptopetala. The relative proportions of SS and proboscis length appear to be crucial for the success of pollinators. The directionality of the honey bees' movement, together with the different positioning of reproductive organs, plays an important role in the accuracy of pollen transfer and pollination efficiency.     

Foraging behavior of honeybees on white clover

Summary Measurements of several aspects of foraging behavior of honeybees on white clover and of factors that might influence it were made at one-to-two-week intervals during the season. Other measurements were made on intervening days. Individual blossoms yielded a mean of from 0.02 to 0.08 l of nectar containing 42 to 65% sugar during the season. On one day when the nectar averaged 65% sugar, bees with pollen on their corbiculae carried a mean of 5.2 mg of pollen and 37.3 mg of nectar; bees without pollen carried a mean of 37.9 mg of nectar. On 10 occasions each of 50 bees were timed while foraging a single blossom; the mean foraging speed differed significantly on the 10 occasions, and varied from 1.5 to 3.0 seconds per blossom. Each of 18 bees was timed during visits to 25 blossoms, and the total time required for the same bees to forage from the blossoms on 25 racemes was also measured. The mean foraging speed of these bees varied from 1.1 to 4.5 seconds per blossom; the differences were highly significant. These bees foraged 7.0 to 26.0 blossoms per minute, and there was a strong negative correlation between the mean seconds required for bees to forage blossoms and the mean number of blossoms foraged per minute. Fifty one bees observed for a total of 314.5 minutes foraged an average of 18.4 blossoms per minute and 3.4 blossoms per inflorescence. Sixty one per cent of the flights of foraging bees were made to inflorescences estimated to be less than 5 inches from the starting point.Published as Technical Contribution N^o 4244 from theTexas Agricultural Experiment Station.     

Bees get a head start on honey production

Nectar concentration is assumed to remain constant during transport by honeybees between flowers and hive. We sampled crop contents of nectar foragers on Aloe greatheadii var. davyana, a major winter bee plant in South Africa. The nectar is dilute (approx. 20% w/w), but the crop contents of bees captured on flowers are significantly more concentrated. In returning foragers, the concentration increases further to 38–40%, accompanied by a volume decrease. The doubling of sugar concentration suggests that nectar is regurgitated onto the tongue and evaporated during foraging and on the return flight. Processing of the dilute nectar into honey thus begins early, aided by low ambient humidities. This has implications for honeybee thermoregulation, water balance and energetics during foraging, and for the communication of nectar quality to recruits.     

Resource use and foraging patterns of honeybees,Apis mellifera,and native insects on flowers of Eucalyptus costata

Introduced honeybees have become well established throughout Australia and concerns have been raised about their impact on the native flora and fauna. Such concerns include the possible depletion of nectar resources by honeybees to the detriment of native animals and the ability of honeybees to pollinate Australian plants. The foraging patterns and resource utilization of honeybees (Apis mellifera) and native insects on flowers of yellow Mallee (Eucalyptus costata) (Behr & F. Muell, ex F. Muell.) were studied in Wyperfeld National Park during spring 1994. Seventy-four insect species visited the flowers with the most prevalent being honeybees, native bees (Lasioglossum and Hylaeus) and ants (Iridiomyrmex). Honeybees began foraging at lower temperatures than native bees and hence had initial access to the nectar supply that was primarily produced overnight by E. costata. However, the majority (90%) of early morning visits to flowers by honeybees involved the collection of pollen. Honeybees did not forage for nectar in substantial numbers until after native insects were active. Despite both consumption and evaporation, nectar supplies remained available at midday and at one site remained available for consumption at dusk. Honeybees regularly made contact with the receptive stigmata while foraging for pollen and hence had pollen loads consisting of numerous E. costata grains present on their body. These activities are indicative of the behaviour required by insects to facilitate pollination. Given the unique morphology of many native flowers and the contrasting findings from studies to date, it is critical that generalisations about the effect of honeybees in the Australian environment are not made from studies on a limited number of native plant species.     

Foraging strategy predicts foraging economy in a facultative secondary nectar robber

In mutualistic interactions, the decision whether to cooperate or cheat depends on the relative costs and benefits of each strategy. In pollination mutualisms, secondary nectar robbing is a facultative behavior employed by a diverse array of nectar‐feeding organisms, and is thought to be a form of cheating. Primary robbers create holes in floral tissue through which they feed on nectar, whereas secondary robbers, which often lack chewing mouthparts, feed on nectar through existing holes. Because primary robbers make nectar more readily available to secondary robbers, primary robbers facilitate the behaviors of secondary robbers. However, the net effect of facilitation on secondary robber fitness has not been empirically tested: it is unknown whether the benefit secondary robbers receive is strong enough to overcome the cost of competing with primary robbers for a shared resource. We conducted foraging experiments using the bumble bee Bombus bifarius, which can alternatively forage ‘legitimately’ (from the floral opening) or secondary‐rob. We measured the relative foraging efficiencies (handling time per flower, flowers visited per minute, proportion of foraging bout spent consuming nectar) of these alternative behaviors, and tested whether the frequency of primary robbing and nectar standing crop in primary‐robbed flowers of Linaria vulgaris (Plantaginaceae) affected foraging efficiency. Surprisingly, there was no effect of primary robbing frequency on the foraging efficiency of secondary‐robbing B. bifarius. Instead, foraging strategy was a major predictor of foraging efficiency, with legitimate foraging being significantly more efficient than secondary robbing. Legitimate foraging was the more common strategy used by B. bifarius in our study; however, it is rarely used by B. bifarius foraging on L. vulgaris in nature, despite indications that it is more efficient. Our results suggest the need for deeper investigations into why bees adopt secondary robbing as a foraging strategy, specifically, the environmental contexts that promote the behavior.     

Choice of flowers by foraging honey bees (Apis mellifera): possible morphological cues

Abstract.

• 1 Honey bees foraging for nectar on lavender (Lavandula stoechas) chose inflorescences with more of their flowers open. The number of open flowers predicted whether an inflorescence was visited by bees, inspected but rejected, or ignored. Inflorescences chosen arbitrarily by observers had numbers of open flowers intermediate between those of visited and ignored inflorescences.
• 2 Differences in morphological characters between types of inflorescence correlated with nectar volume and sugar weight per flower so that visited inflorescences had a disproportionately greater volume of nectar and weight of sugar per flower and greater variance in nectar volume.
• 3 Although there were significant associations between nectar content and the morphological characters of inflorescences, discriminant function analysis revealed discrimination on the basis of morphology rather than nectar content.
• 4 Visited inflorescences tended to have smaller than average flowers but bees tended to probe the largest flowers on visited inflorescences.
• 5 Choice of flowers within inflorescences is explicable in terms of the relationship between flower size and nectar content.

     

Pollinator genetics and pollination: do honey bee colonies selected for pollen‐hoarding field better pollinators of cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon?

1. Genetic polymorphisms of flowering plants can influence pollinator foraging but it is not known whether heritable foraging polymorphisms of pollinators influence their pollination efficacies. Honey bees Apis mellifera L. visit cranberry flowers for nectar but rarely for pollen when alternative preferred flowers grow nearby. 2. Cranberry flowers visited once by pollen‐foraging honey bees received four‐fold more stigmatic pollen than flowers visited by mere nectar‐foragers (excluding nectar thieves). Manual greenhouse pollinations with fixed numbers of pollen tetrads (0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32) achieved maximal fruit set with just eight pollen tetrads. Pollen‐foraging honey bees yielded a calculated 63% more berries than equal numbers of non‐thieving nectar‐foragers, even though both classes of forager made stigmatic contact. 3. Colonies headed by queens of a pollen‐hoarding genotype fielded significantly more pollen‐foraging trips than standard commercial genotypes, as did hives fitted with permanently engaged pollen traps or colonies containing more larvae. Pollen‐hoarding colonies together brought back twice as many cranberry pollen loads as control colonies, which was marginally significant despite marked daily variation in the proportion of collected pollen that was cranberry. 4. Caloric supplementation of matched, paired colonies failed to enhance pollen foraging despite the meagre nectar yields of individual cranberry flowers. 5. Heritable behavioural polymorphisms of the honey bee, such as pollen‐hoarding, can enhance fruit and seed set by a floral host (e.g. cranberry), but only if more preferred pollen hosts are absent or rare. Otherwise, honey bees' broad polylecty, flight range, and daily idiosyncrasies in floral fidelity will obscure specific pollen‐foraging differences at a given floral host, even among paired colonies in a seemingly uniform agricultural setting.     

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.