Oecologia

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Nectar selection by Melipona and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and the ecology of nectar intake by bee colonies in a tropical forest

  • David W. Roubik
  • Stephen L. Buchmann
Original Papers

Summary

Colony foraging activity of four Melipona species (Apidae: Meliponinae, tribe Meliponini) was studied during the dry season, when many plants flower in central Panama. The efficiency of sucrose solution uptake by Melipona was compared to that of domesticated European Apis mellifera. Dynamics of nectar foraging were also recorded for 3 of the Melipona visiting the forest shrub, Hybanthus prunifolius (Violaceae).
  1. 1.

    Sugar concentration in nectar brought to nests averaged from 21 to 60% sugar for 15 colonies of M. fasciata, M. compressipes triplaridis, M. fuliginosa and M. marginata micheneri. Concentrations ranged from 19 to 72%, and all species collected nectars ranging at least between 24 and 63% sugar. However, M. compressipes and M. marginata preferred higher concentrations and foraged less on dilute nectars. Peak colony nectar harvest occured in late morning or early afternoon; peak pollen harvest was in early morning.

     
  2. 2.

    Imbibing rates of bees given 20, 30, 45, 60 or 70% sucrose solutions were highest at ≦45% sucrose, but caloric intake was most rapid at 60% sucrose for all species. All but M. marginata displayed greater net intake rates than domesticated European Apis mellifera. A foraging choice model incorporating caloric reward and imbibing rates of bees suggests M. compressipes and M. marginata should specialize on richer nectars. Rate of caloric intake per forager weight was higher for all Melipona (0.03–0.13g) than for A. mellifera (0.10 g).

     
  3. 3.

    The nectar of Hybanthus prunifolius (Violaceae), a shrub pollinated exclusively by Melipona, progressed from 35 to 60% sugar during the day. Bees foraged most when nectar was below 60% concentration, a pattern best explained as the result of intercolony competition and greater availability of lower quality nectar.

     
  4. 4.

    Sugar concentration in nectar harvested by colonies rose from lower to higher values through the day for Melipona. The increasing caloric reward of nectar is adaptive in exploiting foraging preferences of such bees. As standing nectar crop is depleted by competing bees, a gradual shift to more rewarding nectar should promote increased bee foraging range, more flower visits during a foraging trip, floral constancy, and genetic outcrossing.

     
  5. 5.

    The nectar load capacity of A. mellifera is greater than that of Melipona. Other factors being equal, Africanized A. mellifera, now a permanent resident of neotropical forests, should visit more flowers during a foraging trip. Additional species differences in foraging behavior are analyzed.

     

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Augspurger CK (1980) Mass-flowering of a tropical shrub (Hybanthus prunifolius): Influence on pollinator attraction and movement. Evolution 34:475–488Google Scholar
  2. Baker HG, Bawa KS, Frankie GW, Opler PA (1983) Reproductive biology of plants in tropical forests. In: Golley FB (ed) Tropical rain forest ecosystems, Elsevier Scientific, New York, pp 183–215Google Scholar
  3. Baker HG, Hurd P (1968) Intrafloral ecology. Ann Rev Ent 13:385–414Google Scholar
  4. Buchmann SL, Shipman CW (in prep.) Optimal nectar feeding rates in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae)Google Scholar
  5. Corbet SA, Willmer PG (1981) The nectar of Justicia and Columnea: Composition and concentration in a humid tropical climate. Oecologia (Berlin) 51:412–418Google Scholar
  6. Croat TC (1978) Flora of Barro Colorado Island. Stanford University Press Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  7. Ducke A (1925) Die stachellosen Bienen Brasiliens. Zool. Jahrb. 49 Abt für Syst 335–448Google Scholar
  8. Foster R (1982) The seasonal rhythm of fruitfall on Barro Colorado Island. In: Leigh EG, Rand AS, Windsor DM (eds) The ecology of a tropical forest: Seasonal rhythms and long-term changes. Smithsonian Inst Press, Washington DC, pp 151–172Google Scholar
  9. Frankie GW, Haber WA (1983) Why bees move among massflowering neotropical trees. In: Jones E, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination ecology, Van Nostrand, New York, pp 360–372Google Scholar
  10. Free JB (1956) A study of the stimuli which release the food begging and offering responses of worker honeybees. Br J Anim Behav 4:94–101Google Scholar
  11. Frisch K von (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Belknap Press of Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  12. Heinrich B (1975) Energetics of pollination. Ann Rev Syst Ecol 6:139–170Google Scholar
  13. Heinrich B, Raven PH (1972) Energetics and pollination ecology. Science 176:597–602Google Scholar
  14. Hubbell SP (1979) Tree dispersion, abundance, and diversity in a tropical dry forest. Science 203:1299–1309Google Scholar
  15. Hubbell SP, Johnson LK (1977) Competition and nest spacing in a tropical stingless bee community. Ecology 58:949–963Google Scholar
  16. Hubbell SP, Johnson LK (1978) Comparative foraging behavior of six stingless bee species exploiting a standardized resource. Ecology 59:1123–1136Google Scholar
  17. Inouye DW (1978) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: Experimental studies of foraging behavior. Ecology 59:672–678Google Scholar
  18. Johnson LK (1981) Effect of flower clumping on defense of artificial flowers by aggressive stingless bees. Biotropica 13:151–157Google Scholar
  19. Johnson LK, Hubbell SP (1974) Aggression and competition among stingless bees: Field studies. Ecology 55:120–127Google Scholar
  20. Johnson LK, Hubbell SP (1975) Contrasting foraging strategies and coexistence of two bee species on a single resource. Ecology 56:1398–1406Google Scholar
  21. Marden JH, Waddington KD (1981) Floral choices by honey bees in relation to the relative distance to flowers. Physiol Entomol 6:431–435Google Scholar
  22. Michener CD (1974) Social behavior of the bees. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  23. Michener CD (1975) The Brazilian bee problem. Ann Rev Entomol 20:399–416Google Scholar
  24. Michener CD (1979) Biogeography of the bees. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 66:277–347Google Scholar
  25. Nuñez JA (1982) Honey bee foraging strategies at a food source in relation to its distance from the hive and the rate of sugar flow. J Apic Res 21:139–150Google Scholar
  26. Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Patterns of movement between inflorescences. Theor Popul Biol 13:72–98Google Scholar
  27. Pyke GH (1982) Local geographic distributions of bumblebees near Crested Butte, Colorado: Competition and community structure. Ecology 63:555–573Google Scholar
  28. Pyke GH, Blazer L (1982) The effects of the introduced honey bee Apis mellifera on Australian native bees. Report to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife ServiceGoogle Scholar
  29. Rand AS, Rand WM (1982) Variation in rainfall on Barro Colorado Island. In: Leigh EG, Rand AS, Windsor DM (eds) The ecology of a tropical forest: Seasonal rhythms and long-term changes. Smithsonian Inst Press, Washington, DC, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  30. Roubik DW (1978) Competitive interactions between Africanized honey bees and neotropical pollinators. Science 201:1030–1032Google Scholar
  31. Roubik DW (1979a) Competition studies of colonizing Africanized honey bees and native pollinators in South America. Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Roubik DW (1979b) Nest and colony characteristics of stingless bees from French Guiana. J Kans Ent Soc 52:443–470Google Scholar
  33. Roubik DW (1980) Foraging behavior of competing Africanized honey bees and stingless bees. Ecology 61:836–845Google Scholar
  34. Roubik DW (1981) Comparative foraging behavior of Apis mellifera and Trigona corvina (Hymenoptera: Apidae) on Baltimora recta (Compositae). Revista de Biologia Tropical 29:177–184Google Scholar
  35. Roubik DW (1982a) Africanized honey bees confirmed in Panama. Amer Bee J 122:322Google Scholar
  36. Roubik DW (1982b) The ecological impact of nectar-robbing bees and pollinating hummingbirds on a tropical shrub. Ecology 63:354–360Google Scholar
  37. Roubik DW (1982c) Obligate necrophagy in a social bee. Science 217:1059–1060Google Scholar
  38. Roubik DW (1982d) Seasonality in colony food storage, brood production and adult survivorship: Studies of Melipona in tropical forest (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Kan Entomol Soc 55:789–800Google Scholar
  39. Roubik DW (1982e) Ecological impact of Africanized honey bees on native neotropical pollinators. In: Jaisson P (ed) Social insects in the tropics, vol 1. Univ Paris-Nord, pp 233–247Google Scholar
  40. Roubik DW (1983a) Nest and colony characteristics of stingless bees from Panama. J Kans Ent Soc 56:327–355Google Scholar
  41. Roubik DW (1983b) Experimental community studies: Time-series tests of competition between African and Neotropical bees. Ecology 64:1100–1110Google Scholar
  42. Roubik DW, Aluja M (1983) Flight ranges of foraging Melipona and Trigona in a tropical forest. J Kans Ent Soc 56:217–222Google Scholar
  43. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Amer Natur 122:240–285Google Scholar
  44. Schwarz HF (1932) The genus Melipona. Bull Amer Mus Nat Hist 63:231–480Google Scholar
  45. Schwarz HF (1934) The social bees of Barro Colorado Island, Canal Zone. Amer Mus Novit No 731, 1–23Google Scholar
  46. Thomson JD, Plowright RC (1980) Pollen carryover, nectar rewards, and pollinator behavior with special reference to Diervilla lonicera. Oecologia (Berlin) 46:68–74Google Scholar
  47. Thomson JD, Maddison WP, Plowright RC (1982) Behavior of bumble bee pollinators of Aralia hispida Vent (Araliaceae). Oecologia (Berlin) 54:326–336Google Scholar
  48. Visscher PD, Seeley TD (1982) Foraging strategy of honey bee colonies in a deciduous forest. Ecology 63:1790–1801Google Scholar
  49. Waddington KD (1980) Flight patterns of foraging bees relative to density of artificial flowers and distribution of nectar. Oecologia (Berlin) 44:199–204Google Scholar
  50. Wells PH, Giacchino J (1968) Relationship between the volume and the sugar concentration of loads carried by honey bees. J Apic Res 20:77–82Google Scholar
  51. Whitham TG (1977) Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: A last dreg theory. Science 197:593–596Google Scholar
  52. Wiens JA (1977) On competition and variable environments. Amer Sci 65:590–597Google Scholar
  53. Wille A (1982) Biology of the stingless bees. Ann Rev Entomol 28:41–64Google Scholar
  54. Zimmerman M (1980) Reproduction in Polemonium: Competition for pollinators. Ecology 61:497–501Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. Roubik
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephen L. Buchmann
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, APDOBalboaPanama
  2. 2.Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, APOMiamiUSA
  3. 3.Carl Hayden Bee Research LaboratoryUSDATucsonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations