Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 247–265 | Cite as

Laboratory analysis of flower constancy in foraging bumblebees: Bombus ternarius and B. terricola

  • Bernd Heinrich
  • Patricia R. Mudge
  • Pamela G. Deringis
Article

Summary

  1. 1.

    We established apparently normal foraging behavior in captive bumblebees utilizing artificial flowers. Syrup rewards of flowers visited were experimentally manipulated to correspond to nectar volumes found in flowers utilized in the field.

     
  2. 2.

    Bees became >90% flower-constant to either of two flower types (distinguished by color) when rewarded with 1.0 μl 50% sucrose at each visit to flowers of one color, while the others remained unrewarded.

     
  3. 3.

    Flower-constancy to ‘blue’ was achieved within 50 flower visits, but equal flower constancy to ‘white’ was achieved only after 250 flower visits.

     
  4. 4.

    While being trained to white flowers the bees increased their percent correct (rewarding) flower choice over consecutive foraging trips during the day, but decreased their performance overnight.

     
  5. 5.

    Bees trained to blue did not switch to white flowers even when the white were subsequently rewarded with more food than the blue. However, bees trained to white utilized blue flowers.

     
  6. 6.

    Most bees simultaneously presented with white flowers having six times greater syrup rewards than blue visited both in approximately equal proportions independent of flower density, while some individuals visited primarily blue flowers.

     
  7. 7.

    The laboratory experiments suggest that bumblebees, once conditioned, are relatively ‘constant’ foragers despite changes in resource availability.

     

Keywords

Arena Food Reward Artificial Flower Flower Visit White Flower 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brian, A.D.: Division of labour and foraging in Bombus agrorum Fabricius. J. Anim. Ecol. 21, 223–240 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brian, A.D.: Differences in the flowers visited by four species of bumblebees and their causes. J. Anim. Ecol. 26, 71–98 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eisner, T., Silberglied, R.E., Aneshansley, D., Carrel, J.E., Howland, H.C.: Ultravilet videoviewing: The television camera as an insect eye. Science 166, 1172–1174 (1969)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erber, J.: The dynamics of learning in the honey bee (Apis mellifera carnica). I. The time dependence of the choice reaction. J. comp. Physiol. 99, 231–242 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Free, J.B.: The flower constancy of bumblebees. J. Anim. Ecol. 39, 395–402 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frisch, K. von: The dance language and orientation of bees. (Translated by L. Chadwick.) Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press 1967Google Scholar
  7. Grant, V.: The flower constancy of bees. Bot. Rev. 16, 379–398 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. heinrich, B.: Energetics of temperature regulation and foraging in a bumblebee, Bombus terricola Kirby. J. comp. Physiol. 77, 49–64 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heinrich, B.: The role of energetics in bumblebee-flower interrelationships. In: Coevolution of animals and plants (eds. L.E. Gilbert, P.H. Raven), Austin: Univ. Austin Press 1975Google Scholar
  10. Heinrich, B.: The foraging specializations of individual bumblebees. Ecol. Monogr. 46, 105–128 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinrich, B., Raven, P.: Energetics and pollination ecology. Science 176, 597–602 (1972)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hobbs, G.A.: Further studies on the food-gathering behavior of bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can. Entomol. 94, 538–541 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inouye, D.: Foraging behavior and ecology of bumblebees in the Rocky Mountains. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. North Carolina 1976Google Scholar
  14. Koltermann, R.: Rassen-bzw. artspezifische Duftbewertungen bei der Honigbiene und ökologische Adaptation. J. comp. Physiol. 85, 327–360 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kriston, I.: Zum Problem des Lernverhaltens von Apis mellifica L. gegenüber verschiedenen Duftstoffen. Z. vergl. Physiol. 74, 169–189 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kriston, I.: Die Bewertung von Duft-und Farbsignalen als Orientierungshilfen an der Futterquelle durch Apis mellifera L. J. comp. Physiol. 84, 77–94 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kugler, H.: Hummeln als Blütenbesucher. Ergebn. Biol. 19, 143–323 (1943)Google Scholar
  18. MacFarlane, R.P., Pengelly, D.H.: Conopidae and Sarcophagidae (Diptera) as parasites of adult Bombinae (Hymenoptera) in Ontario. Proc. Ent. Soc. Ontario 105, 55–59 (1974)Google Scholar
  19. Manning, A.: Some aspects of the foraging behavior of bumble-bees. Behaviour 9, 164–201 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Menzel, R.: Das Gedächtnis der Honigbiene für Spektralfarben. Z. vergl. Physiol. 60, 82–102 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menzel, R., Erber, J., Mashur, T.: Learning and memory in the honeybee. In: Experimental analysis of insect behavior (ed. L. Barton-Brown), Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1974Google Scholar
  22. Müller, H.: Die Alpenblumen, ihre Befruchtung durch Insekten und ihre Anpassung an dieselben. Leipzig: 1881Google Scholar
  23. Oster, G., Heinrich, B.: Why do bumblebees major? A mathematical model. Ecol. Monogr. 46, 129–133 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Heinrich
    • 1
  • Patricia R. Mudge
    • 2
  • Pamela G. Deringis
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of MaineFarmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations