, Volume 69, Issue 2, pp 309–315 | Cite as

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

  • Lawrence D. Harder
Original Papers


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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker HG (1975) Sugar concentrations in nectars from hummingbird flowers. Biotropica 7:37–41Google Scholar
  2. Bertsch A (1984) Foraging in male bumblebees (Bombus lucorum L.): maximizing energy or minimizing water load? Oecologia (Berlin) 62:325–336Google Scholar
  3. Bitterman ME (1976) Incentive contrast in honeybees. Science 192:380–382Google Scholar
  4. Ewald PW, Williams WA (1982) Function of the bill and tongue in nectar uptake by hummingbirds. Auk 99:573–576Google Scholar
  5. Hainsworth FR (1973) On the tongue of a hummingbird: its role in the rate and energetics of feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol 46A:65–78Google Scholar
  6. Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) Nectar characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia (Berlin) 25:101–113Google Scholar
  7. Harder LD (1982) Measurement and estimation of functional proboscis length in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can J Zool 60:1073–1079Google Scholar
  8. Harder LD (1983a) Flower handling efficiency of bumble bees: morphological aspects of probing time. Oecologia (Berlin) 57:274–280Google Scholar
  9. Harder LD (1983b) Functional differences of the proboscides of short- and long-tongued bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Can J Zool 61:1580–1586Google Scholar
  10. Harder LD (1985) Morphology as a predictor of flower choice by bumble bees. Ecology 66:198–210Google Scholar
  11. 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 1:457–460Google Scholar
  12. Hartling LK, Plowright RC (1979b) Foraging by bumble bees on patches of artificial flowers: a laboratory study. Can J Zool 57:1866–1870Google Scholar
  13. Hemrich B (1975) Thermoregulation in bumblebees II. Energetics of warm-up and free flight. J Comp Physiol 96:155–166Google Scholar
  14. Heinrich B (1979) Resource heterogeneity and patterns of movement in foraging bumblebees. Oecologia (Berlin) 40:235–245Google Scholar
  15. Heyneman AJ (1983) Optimal sugar concentrations of floral nectars—dependence on sugar intake efficiency and foraging costs. Oecologia (Berlin) 60:198–213Google Scholar
  16. Hodges CM (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: hunting by expectation. Anim Behav 29:1166–1171Google Scholar
  17. Hodges CM (1985) Bumble bee foraging: the threshold departure rule. Ecology 66:179–187Google Scholar
  18. Hodges CM, Wolf LL (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:41–44Google Scholar
  19. Kingsolver JG, Daniel TL (1983) Mechanical determinants of nectar feeding strategy in hummingbirds: energetics, tongue morphology, and licking behavior. Oecologia (Berlin) 60:214–226Google Scholar
  20. May PG (1985) Nectar uptake rates and optimal nectar concentrations of two butterfly species. Oecologia (Berlin) 66:381–386Google Scholar
  21. Montgomerie RD (1984) Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters. Oecologia (Berlin) 63:229–236Google Scholar
  22. Morse DH (1980) The effect of nectar abundance on foraging patterns of bumble bees. Ecol Ent 5:53–59Google Scholar
  23. Neter J, Wasserman W (1974) Applied linear models. Irwin, Homewood, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  24. 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) 66:226–237Google Scholar
  25. Plowright RC, Laverty TM (1984) The ecology and sociobiology of bumble bees. Ann Rev Ent 29:175–199Google Scholar
  26. Pouvreau A (1974) Le comportement alimentaire des bourdons (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Bombus Latr.): La consommation de solutions sucrées. Apidologie 5:247–270Google Scholar
  27. Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging: movement patterns of bumblebees between inflorescences. Theor Pop Biol 13:72–98Google Scholar
  28. Pyke GH, Waser NM (1981) The production of dilute nectars by hummingbird and honeyeater flowers. Biotropica 13:260–270Google Scholar
  29. 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) 61:1–10Google Scholar
  30. Snodgrass RE (1956) Anatomy of the honey bee. Comstock, Ithaca NYGoogle Scholar
  31. Waddington KD (1983) Foraging behavior of pollinators. In: Real L (ed), Pollination biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 213–239Google Scholar
  32. Waller GD (1972) Evaluating responses of honey bees to sugar solutions using an artificial-flower feeder. Ann Ent Soc Amer 65:857–862Google Scholar
  33. Whitham TG (1977) Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: a last dreg theory. Science 197:593–596Google Scholar
  34. Woodrow AW (1968) Some factors affecting selection of sucrose solutions by foraging honey bees. Amer Bee J 108:313–315Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence D. Harder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EvolutionState University of New YorkStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations