Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of nectar concentration and flower depth on flower handling efficiency of bumble bees

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Fluid viscosity only affected ingestion rates of bumble bees (Bombus) for solutions greater than 35–40% sucrose (mass of solute per mass of solution). This contrasts with previously published models based on fluid dynamics which predicted continuous depression of ingestion rates with increasing viscosity. Individual bees maintained constant lapping rates regardless of sucrose concentration (up to at least 70%). The decline in ingestion rates at higher concentrations apparently resulted from the tongue not contacting liquid long enough to become saturated due to reduced capillary flow. Increasing flower depth similarly decreased the volume of liquid ingested per lap, and did not affect lapping rate. Morphologically dissimilar bees drank at different rates because glossa length affects lapping rate and volume ingested per lap, and body mass affects lapping rate. An additional species-specific component to lapping rate also influenced ingestion rates. Deviations from a regression model derived to explain ingestion rates as a function of glossa length, body mass, flower depth and liquid viscosity suggest mechanistic and behavioralaspects to flower probing time. Because of the relation between ingestion rate and liquid viscosity, the sucrose concentration maximizing a bee's rate of net energy uptake should lie between 50–65%, depending primarily on specific conditions of nectar volume, inflorescence size and flight time between inflorescences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker HG (1975) Sugar concentrations in nectars from hummingbird flowers. Biotropica 7:37–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertsch A (1984) Foraging in male bumblebees (Bombus lucorum L.): maximizing energy or minimizing water load? Oecologia (Berlin) 62:325–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitterman ME (1976) Incentive contrast in honeybees. Science 192:380–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewald PW, Williams WA (1982) Function of the bill and tongue in nectar uptake by hummingbirds. Auk 99:573–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainsworth FR (1973) On the tongue of a hummingbird: its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol 46A:65–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) Nectar characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia (Berlin) 25:101–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD (1982) Measurement and estimation of functional proboscis length in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can J Zool 60:1073–1079

    Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD (1983a) Flower handling efficiency of bumble bees: morphological aspects of probing time. Oecologia (Berlin) 57:274–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD (1983b) Functional differences of the proboscides of short- and long-tongued bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Can J Zool 61:1580–1586

    Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD (1985) Morphology as a predictor of flower choice by bumble bees. Ecology 66:198–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartling LK, Plowright RC (1979a) An investigation of inter- and intra-inflorescence visitation rates by bumble bees on red clover with special reference to seed set. Proc IVth Int Symp on Pollination, Md Agric Exp Stat Spec Misc Publ 1:457–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartling LK, Plowright RC (1979b) Foraging by bumble bees on patches of artificial flowers: a laboratory study. Can J Zool 57:1866–1870

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemrich B (1975) Thermoregulation in bumblebees II. Energetics of warm-up and free flight. J Comp Physiol 96:155–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1979) Resource heterogeneity and patterns of movement in foraging bumblebees. Oecologia (Berlin) 40:235–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyneman AJ (1983) Optimal sugar concentrations of floral nectars—dependence on sugar intake efficiency and foraging costs. Oecologia (Berlin) 60:198–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges CM (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: hunting by expectation. Anim Behav 29:1166–1171

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges CM (1985) Bumble bee foraging: the threshold departure rule. Ecology 66:179–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges CM, Wolf LL (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:41–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsolver JG, Daniel TL (1983) Mechanical determinants of nectar feeding strategy in hummingbirds: energetics, tongue morphology, and licking behavior. Oecologia (Berlin) 60:214–226

    Google Scholar 

  • May PG (1985) Nectar uptake rates and optimal nectar concentrations of two butterfly species. Oecologia (Berlin) 66:381–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomerie RD (1984) Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters. Oecologia (Berlin) 63:229–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse DH (1980) The effect of nectar abundance on foraging patterns of bumble bees. Ecol Ent 5:53–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Neter J, Wasserman W (1974) Applied linear models. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • Pivnick KA, McNeil JN (1985) Effects of nectar concentration on butterfly feeding: measured feeding rates for Thymelicus lineola (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) and a general feeding model for adult Lepidoptera. Oecologia (Berlin) 66:226–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Plowright RC, Laverty TM (1984) The ecology and sociobiology of bumble bees. Ann Rev Ent 29:175–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouvreau A (1974) Le comportement alimentaire des bourdons (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Bombus Latr.): La consommation de solutions sucrées. Apidologie 5:247–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging: movement patterns of bumblebees between inflorescences. Theor Pop Biol 13:72–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH, Waser NM (1981) The production of dilute nectars by hummingbird and honeyeater flowers. Biotropica 13:260–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Roubik DW, Buchmann SL (1984) Nectar selection by Melipona and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and the ecology of nectar intake by bee colonies in a tropical forest. Oecologia (Berlin) 61:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass RE (1956) Anatomy of the honey bee. Comstock, Ithaca NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington KD (1983) Foraging behavior of pollinators. In: Real L (ed), Pollination biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 213–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller GD (1972) Evaluating responses of honey bees to sugar solutions using an artificial-flower feeder. Ann Ent Soc Amer 65:857–862

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitham TG (1977) Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: a last dreg theory. Science 197:593–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodrow AW (1968) Some factors affecting selection of sucrose solutions by foraging honey bees. Amer Bee J 108:313–315

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harder, L.D. Effects of nectar concentration and flower depth on flower handling efficiency of bumble bees. Oecologia 69, 309–315 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377639

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377639

Keywords

Navigation