, Volume 78, Issue 4, pp 433–442 | Cite as

Interpreting patterns of resource utilization: randomness and selectivity in pollen feeding by adult hoverflies

  • J. R. Haslett
Original Papers


Adult syrphid flies feed primarily on pollen and nectar from flowers and may be regarded as suitable models for the investigation of resource partitioning in a plant/pollinator system. The present study examines the extent to which a small group of six species are selective in their diets and investigates the role of flower colour as a means by which such selectivity may occur. Flower feeding preferences were determined by pollen analyses of gut contents and an extensive flower sampling programme was under-taken to provide information on the relative abundances of the food resources available to the insects. Flower colours were defined by their reflectance spectra, and the inherent colour preferences of the flies were determined by field experiments in which natural flowers were simulated using painted plastic discs. The results reveal that some hoverfly species are highly selective in their pollen diets, while others have a more generalist approach to their foraging. The division of flower resources by the more selective species is shown to be dependent, at least partially, on the colours of the flowers. The findings are discussed in relation to the theories of Competition and Optimal Foraging and the ‘mechanistic approach’ to ecology. The use of learning models is suggested as an alternative means of investigating patterns of resource use in future research.

Key words

Resource partitioning Mechanistic approach Syrphidae Pollen Flower colour 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker HG, Baker I (1979) Starch in angiosperm pollen grains and its evolutionary significance. Am J Bot 66:591–600Google Scholar
  2. Barendregt A (1975) Bloemvoorkeur bij zweefliegen (Diptera: Syrphidae). Ent Ber Amst 35:96–100Google Scholar
  3. Bertsch A (1984) Foraging in male bumblebees (Bombus lucorum L.): maximizing energy or minimizing water load? Oecologia 62:325–336Google Scholar
  4. Boggs CL (1981) Nutritional and life history determinants of resource allocation in holometabolous insects. Am Nat 117:692–709Google Scholar
  5. Boggs CL (1986) Reproductive strategies of female butterflies: variation in and constraints on fecundity. Ecol Ent 11:7–15Google Scholar
  6. Bowers MA (1985) Experimental analyses of competition between two species of bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Oecologia 67:224–230Google Scholar
  7. Brian AD (1950) The pollen collected by bumblebees. J Anim Ecol 20:191–194Google Scholar
  8. Brooks D, Thomas KW (1967) The distribution of pollen grains on microscope slides, I. The non-randomness of the distribution. Pollen Spores 9:621–629Google Scholar
  9. Connell JH (1980) Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138Google Scholar
  10. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696Google Scholar
  11. Corbet SA (1978) Bee visits and the nectar of Echium vulgare L. and Sinapis alba L. Ecol Ent 3:25–37Google Scholar
  12. Corbet SA, Unwin DM, Prys-jones OE (1979) Humidity, nectar and insect visits to flowers, with special reference to Crataegus, Tilia and Echium. Ecol Ent 4:9–22Google Scholar
  13. Daumer K (1956) Reizmetrische Untersuchung des Farbensehens der Bienen. Z Vergl Physiol 38:413–478Google Scholar
  14. Dobson HEM (1987) Role of flower and pollen aromas in host-plant recognition by solitary bees. Oecologia 72:618–623Google Scholar
  15. Erdtman G (1969) Handbook of Palynology, Morphology, Taxonomy, Ecology, Munksgaard, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  16. Faegeri K, Iversen J (1964) A Textbook of Pollen Analysis. Munksgaard, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert FS (1981) Foraging ecology of hoverflies: morphology of the mouthparts in relation to feeding on nectar and pollen in some common urban species. Ecol Ent 6:245–262Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert FS (1985a) Morphometric patterns in hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Proc R Soc Lond B 224:79–90Google Scholar
  19. Gilbert FS (1985b) Ecomorphological relationships in hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Proc R Soc Lond B 224:91–105Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert FS, Harding EF, Line JM, Perry I (1985) Morphological approaches to community structure in hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Proc R Soc Lond B 224:115–130Google Scholar
  21. Grinfeld EK (1955) The feeding of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) and their role in the pollination of plants. Ent Obozr 34:164–166Google Scholar
  22. Harder LD (1986) Effects of nectar concentration and flower depth on flower handling efficiency of bumblebees. Oecologia 69:309–315Google Scholar
  23. Haslett JR (1982) Feeding ecology and behaviour of some adult hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). D Phil thesis, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Haslett JR (1983) A photographic account of pollen digestion by adult hoverflies. Physiol Ent 8:167–171Google Scholar
  25. Haslett JR, Entwistle PF (1980) Further notes on Eriozona syrphoides (Fall) (Dipt, Syrphidae) in Hafren Forest, mid-Wales. Entomologist's Mon Mag 116:36Google Scholar
  26. Heinrich B (1983) Do bumblebees forage optimally, and does it matter? Am Zool 23:273–281Google Scholar
  27. Horridge GA, Mimura K, Tsukahara Y (1975) Fly photoreceptors. II. Spectral and polarized light sensitivity in the drone fly Eristalis. Proc R Soc Lond B 190:225–237Google Scholar
  28. Inouye D (1978) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: experimental studies of foraging behaviour. Ecology 59:672–678Google Scholar
  29. Johnson CG (1961) Syrphid (Diptera) migration on the Norfolk coast in August, 1960. Entomologist's Mon Mag 96:196–197Google Scholar
  30. Kevan PG (1978) Floral coloration, its colorimetric analysis and significance in anthecology. In: Richards AJ (ed) The Pollination of Flowers by Insects. Academic Press, London, pp 51–78Google Scholar
  31. Kirk WDJ (1984) Ecologically selective coloured traps. Ecol Ent 9:35–41Google Scholar
  32. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1979) Competition between distantly related taxa in the coevolution of plants and pollinators. Am Zool 19:1115–1127Google Scholar
  33. Krebs JR (1978) Optimal foraging: decision rules for predators. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford, pp 23–63Google Scholar
  34. Krebs JR, McCleery R (1984) Optimization in behavioural ecology. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural Ecology: an Evolutionary Approach, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 91–121Google Scholar
  35. Krebs JR, Stephens DW, Sutherland WJ (1983) Perspectives in optimal foraging. In: Clark GA, Bush AH (eds) Perspectives in Ornithology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Leereveld H, Meeuse ADJ, Stelleman P (1976) Anthecological relations between reputedly anemophilous flowers and syrphid flies. II. Plantago media L. Acta Bot Neerl 25:205–211Google Scholar
  37. Macarthur RH, Pianca ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609Google Scholar
  38. Mangel M, Clark CW (1986) Towards a unified foraging theory. Ecology 67:1127–1138Google Scholar
  39. Mitchell R (1981) Insect behaviour, resource exploitation, and fitness. Ann Rev Ent 26:373–396Google Scholar
  40. Moore PD, Webb JA (1978) An Illustrated Guide to Pollen Analysis. Hodder and Stoughton, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Müller H (1883) The Fertilisation of Flowers. Macmillan and Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Ollason JG (1980) Learning to forage — optimally? Theor Pop Biol 18:44–56Google Scholar
  43. Peng YS, Nasr ME, Marsston JM (1985) The digestion of dandelion pollen by adult worker honeybees. Physiol Ent 10:75–82Google Scholar
  44. Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML, Mitchell W (1985) Competition and food selection: field tests of a theory. Ecology 66:798–807Google Scholar
  45. Proctor M, Yeo P (1973) The Pollination of Flowers. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Pyke GH (1981) Optimal foraging in nectar-feeding animals and coevolution with their plants. In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging Behaviour: Ecological, Ethological and Psychological Approaches. Garland STPM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Ranta E, Lundberg H (1981) Food niche analyses of bumblebees: a comparison of three data collecting methods. Oikos 36:12–16Google Scholar
  48. Reitsma T (1966) Pollen morphology of some European Rosaceae. Acta Bot Neerl 15:290–307Google Scholar
  49. Schneider F (1958) Künstliche Blumen zum Nachweis von Winterquartieren, Futterpflanzen und Tageswanderung von Lasiopticus pyrastri L. und anderen Schwebfliegen (Syrphidae: Dipt.). Mitt Schweiz Ent Ges 31:1–24Google Scholar
  50. Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39Google Scholar
  51. Schoener TW (1986a) Resource partitioning. In: Kikkawa J, Anderson DJ (eds) Community Ecology: Pattern and Process. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Melbourne, pp 91–126Google Scholar
  52. Schoener TW (1986b) Mechanistic approaches to community ecology: a new reductionism? Am Zool 26:81–106Google Scholar
  53. Schoonhoven LM (1979) What is ‘preference behaviour’ in food selection by invertebrates? In: Kroeze JHA (ed) Preference Behaviour and Chemoreception. IRL LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Sol R (1966) The occurrence of aphidivorous syrphids and their larvae on different crops, with the help of coloured water traps. In: Hodek I (ed) Ecology of Phytophagous Insects. Dr W Junk, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  55. Speight MCD (1978) Flower visiting flies. In: Stubbs A, Chandler P (eds) A Dipterist's Handbook. Amateur Entomologists' Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Stanley RG, Linskens HF (1974) Pollen: Biology, Biochemistry, Management. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Stavenga DG (1976) Fly visual pigments. Difference in visual pigments of blowfly and dronefly peripheral retinula cells. J Comp Physiol 111:137–152Google Scholar
  58. Stavenga DG (1979) Visual pigment processes and prolonged pupillary responses in insect photoreceptor cells. Biophys Struct Mech 5:175–185Google Scholar
  59. Stelleman P, Mecuse ADJ (1976) Anthecological relations between reputedly anemophilous flowers and syrphid flies. I. The possible role of syrphid flies as pollinators of Plantago. Tijdschr Ent 119:15–31Google Scholar
  60. Tsukahara Y, Horridge GA, Stavenga DG (1977) Afterpotentials in dronefly retinula cells. J Comp Physiol 114:253–266Google Scholar
  61. Van-der-Goot VS, Grabandt RAJ (1970) Some species of the genera Melanostoma, Platycheirus and Pyrophaena (Diptera: Syrphidae) and their relation to flowers. Ent Ber 30:135–143Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. R. Haslett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations