Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flower handling efficiency of bumble bees: morphological aspects of probing time

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

Summary

The time required for a bumble bee to visit a flower is affected by the length of the bee's glossa and its body weight, and by the depth of the flower and the volume of nectar it contains. Probing time is comprised of two components: access time and ingestion time. Access time increases linearly with flower depth, but ingestion time varies with flower depth only in flowers deeper than the length of the bee's glossa, due to a decline in the rate of ingestion of nectar. Probing time therefore increases gradually with increasing depth for flowers shallower than the bee's glossa, but beyond that depth it increases much more rapidly. The relation of probing time to flower depth influences the foraging efficiency and choice of flowers by bumble bees.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott IJ, Abbott LK, Grant PR (1975) Seed selection and handling ability of four species of Darwin's finches. Condor 77:332–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Brian AD (1957) Differences in the flowers visited by four species of bumble-bees and their causes. J Anim Ecol 26:71–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig RB (1978) An analysis of the predatory behavior of the loggerhead shrike. Auk 95:221–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon AFG (1959) An experimental study of the searching behaviour of the predatory coccinellid beetle Adalia decempunctata (L.). J Anim Ecol 28:259–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Grant BR, Smith JNM, Abbott JJ, Abbott LK (1976) Darwin's finches: Population variation and natural selection. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 73:257–261

    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 

  • Heinrich B (1976) Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumblebees. Ecology 57:874–889

    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 

  • Holm SN (1966) The utilization and management of bumble bees for red clover and alfalfa seed production. Ann Rev Ent 11:155–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Inouye DW (1980) The effect of proboscis and corolla tube lengths on patterns and rates of flower visitation by bumblebees. Oecologia (Berlin) 45:197–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Macior LW (1974) Pollination ecology of the Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Melanderia 15:1–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Menge JL (1974) Prey selection and foraging period of the predaceous rocky intertidal snail, Acanthina punculata. Oecologia (Berlin) 17:293–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelbach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386

    Google Scholar 

  • Plowright RC, Jay SC (1966) Rearing bumble bee colonies in captivity. J Apicult Res 5:155–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy N, Plowright RC (1980) Maintenance of bumble bee colonies in observation hives (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can Ent 112:321–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1978) Optimal body size in bumblebees. Oecologia (Berlin) 34:255–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranta E, Lundberg H (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: the significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35:298–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Salt GW, Willard DE (1971) The hunting behavior and success of Forester's tern. Ecology 52:989–998

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlamowitz R, Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) On the tongues of sunbirds. Condor 78:104–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1969) Models of optimal size for solitary predators. Am Nat 103:277–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapel C (1933) Undersøgelser over humlebier (Bombus Latr.), deres udbredelse, traekplanter og betydning for bestøningen af rødkløver (Trifolium pratense L.). Tidsskr Planteavl 39:193–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Teräs I (1976) Flower visits of bumblebees, Bombus Latr. (Hymenoptera, Apidae), during one summer. Ann Zool Fennici 13:200–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD, Plowright RC (1980) Pollen carryover, nectar rewards, and pollinator behavior with special reference to Diervilla lonicera. Oecologia (Berlin) 46:68–74

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, M5S 1A1, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Lawrence D. Harder

Authors
  1. Lawrence D. Harder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harder, L.D. Flower handling efficiency of bumble bees: morphological aspects of probing time. Oecologia 57, 274–280 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379591

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379591

Keywords

Search

Navigation