Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploitative competition alters bee foraging and flower choice

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this field experiment, we test and support the hypothesis that exploitative competition between bees can influence several aspects of their foraging behaviour. Three treatments of lavender patches were set out: bumble bees excluded, honey bees excluded, control. Bumble bees are known to handle lavender flowers more rapidly than honey bees, partly due to their longer tongues. As predicted, excluding these superior competitors consistently (n = 4 trials) and greatly increased honey bee numbers per patch (14-fold increase; P < 0.001). The exclusion of bumble bee also caused multiple changes to honey bee foraging behaviour: time spent on a patch (+857 %; P < 0.001), flower handling time (+16 %, P = 0.040), interval between probed flowers (−27 %, P = 0.012), proportion of interflower flights (−26 %, P < 0.001) and flowers rejected (−12 %, P < 0.001). Conversely, and also as predicted, excluding honey bees had no effect on bumble bee numbers or foraging behaviour. A key consequence of bumble bee exclusion was to increase the mean flower nectar content from 0.007 to 0.019 μl (+171 %). By constructing an energy budget, we find that this leads to honey bees making a substantial, rather than a marginal, energetic profit per flower visited. Our results show the foraging behaviour of individual bees is extremely flexible and greatly influenced by the effects of interspecific competition on nectar rewards. Collectively, these individual decisions can have rapid and important consequences at the community level, including competitive exclusion.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balfour NJ, Garbuzov M, Ratnieks FLW (2013) Longer tongues and swifter handling: why do more bumble bees (Bombus spp.) than honey bees (Apis mellifera) forage on lavender (Lavandula spp.)? Ecol Entomol 38:323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesmeijer JC, Slaa EJ (2006) The structure of eusocial bee assemblages in Brazil. Apidologie 37:240–258

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brittain C, Williams N, Kremen C, Klein AM (2013) Synergistic effects of non-Apis bees and honey bees for pollination services. P Roy Soc B 280:201–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2014) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond JM (1970) Ecological consequences of island colonization by southwest Pacific birds, I. Types of niche shifts. P Roy Soc B 67:529–536

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eccard JA, Ylönen H (2002) Direct interference or indirect exploitation? An experimental study of fitness costs of interspecific competition in voles. Oikos 99:580–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Free JB (1965) The allocation of duties among worker honeybees. Symp Zool Soc Lond 22:39–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Free JB (1968) Dandelion as a competitor to fruit trees for bee visits. J Appl Ecol 5:69–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbuzov M, Ratnieks FLW (2013) Quantifying variation among garden plants in attractiveness to bees and other flower‐visiting insects. Funct Ecol 28:364–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D, Sparrow KR (2009) Evidence for competition between honeybees and bumblebees; effects on bumblebee worker size. J Insect Conserv 13:177–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D, Lye GC, Darvill B (2008) Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Ann Rev Entomol 53:191–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf SS, Kremen C (2006) Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:13890–13895

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart D (1987) Feeding territoriality in aquatic insects: cost-benefit models and experimental tests. Am Zool 27:371–386

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebees economics. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera CM (1989) Pollinator abundance, morphology, and flower visitation rate: analysis of the “quantity” component in a plant-pollinator system. Oecologia 80:241–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera CM (1990) Daily patterns of pollinator activity, differential pollinating effectiveness, and floral resource availability, in a summer-flowering Mediterranean shrub. Oikos 58:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inouye DW (1978) Resource partitioning in bumble bees: experimental studies of foraging behaviour. Ecology 59:672–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishii HS, Kadoya T, Kikuchi R, Suda SI, Washitani I (2008) Habitat and flower resource partitioning by an exotic and three native bumble bees in central Hokkaido, Japan. Biol Conserv 141:2597–2607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kevan PG, Baker HG (1983) Insects as flower visitors and pollinators. Ann Rev Entomol 28:407–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister BC (1976) The nature of niche expansion in West Indian Anolis lizards II: evolutionary components. Evolution 30:677–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno RS, Kays RW, Samudio R Jr (2006) Competitive release in diets of ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) and puma (Puma concolor) after jaguar (Panthera onca) decline. J Mammal 87:808–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paini DR (2004) Impact of the introduced honey bee (Apis mellifera)(Hymenoptera: Apidae) on native bees: a review. Austral Ecol 29:399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson L (1985) Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson A, Hansson LA (1999) Diet shift in fish following competitive release. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:70–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reitz SR, Trumble JT (2002) Competitive displacement among insects and arachnids. Ann Rev Entomol 47:435–465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ribbands CR (1949) The foraging method of individual honey-bees. J Anim Ecol 18:47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R-Project (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 10 April 2015

  • Schaffer WM, Jensen DB, Hobbs DE, Gurevitch J, Todd JR, Schaffer MV (1979) Competition, foraging energetics, and the cost of sociality in three species of bees. Ecology 60:976–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Segers FHID, Taborsky B (2012) Competition level determines compensatory growth abilities. Behav Ecol 23:665–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severinghaus LL, Kurtak BH, Eickwort GC (1981) The reproductive behaviour of Anthidium manicatum (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and the significance of size for territorial males. Behav Ecol Soc Biol 9:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC (1997) Strangers in paradise: impact and management of non-indigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Streamclip (2014) MPEG Streamclip for Mac and Windows. http://www.squared5.com/. Accessed 10 April 2015

  • Thomson D (2004) Competitive interactions between the invasive European honey bee and native bumble bees. Ecology 85:458–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upson T, Andrews S (2004) The genus Lavandula. Timber Press, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen L (1965) Morphological variation and width of ecological niche. Am Nat 99:377–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward DM, Nislow KH, Armstrong JD, Einum S, Folt CL (2007) Is the shape of the density-growth relationship for stream salmonids evidence for exploitative rather than interference competition? J Anim Ecol 76:135–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherwax PB (1986) Why do honeybees reject certain flowers? Oecologia 69:567–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams CS (1998) The identity of the previous visitor influences flower rejection by nectar-collecting bees. Anim Behav 56:673–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Felix Schrell, Mihail Garbuzov, Katie Fensome, Liz Samuelson, Martyn Stenning, Charles Fox, Jim Balfour, Julia Balfour and several anonymous referees for their helpful comments. NB’s PhD is funded by Waitrose Limited and the C B Dennis British Beekeepers’ Research Trust.

Funding

This study was funded by Waitrose Ltd and the C B Dennis British Beekeepers’ Research Trust.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Apiculture and Social Insects, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, BN1 9QG

    Nicholas J. Balfour & Francis L. W. Ratnieks

  2. Department of Ecological Sciences, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, UK, AB15 8QH

    Sam Gandy

Authors
  1. Nicholas J. Balfour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sam Gandy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francis L. W. Ratnieks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas J. Balfour.

Additional information

Communicated by W. T. Wcislo

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 165 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balfour, N.J., Gandy, S. & Ratnieks, F.L.W. Exploitative competition alters bee foraging and flower choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69, 1731–1738 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1985-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1985-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation