, Volume 57, Issue 1–2, pp 274–280 | Cite as

Flower handling efficiency of bumble bees: morphological aspects of probing time

  • Lawrence D. Harder
Original Papers


The time required for a bumble bee to visit a flower is affected by the length of the bee's glossa and its body weight, and by the depth of the flower and the volume of nectar it contains. Probing time is comprised of two components: access time and ingestion time. Access time increases linearly with flower depth, but ingestion time varies with flower depth only in flowers deeper than the length of the bee's glossa, due to a decline in the rate of ingestion of nectar. Probing time therefore increases gradually with increasing depth for flowers shallower than the bee's glossa, but beyond that depth it increases much more rapidly. The relation of probing time to flower depth influences the foraging efficiency and choice of flowers by bumble bees.


Body Weight Access Time Flower Depth Morphological Aspect Ingestion Time 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott IJ, Abbott LK, Grant PR (1975) Seed selection and handling ability of four species of Darwin's finches. Condor 77:332–335Google Scholar
  2. Brian AD (1957) Differences in the flowers visited by four species of bumble-bees and their causes. J Anim Ecol 26:71–98Google Scholar
  3. Craig RB (1978) An analysis of the predatory behavior of the loggerhead shrike. Auk 95:221–234Google Scholar
  4. Dixon AFG (1959) An experimental study of the searching behaviour of the predatory coccinellid beetle Adalia decempunctata (L.). J Anim Ecol 28:259–281Google Scholar
  5. Grant PR, Grant BR, Smith JNM, Abbott JJ, Abbott LK (1976) Darwin's finches: Population variation and natural selection. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 73:257–261Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) Nectar characteristics and food selection by hummingbirds. Oecologia (Berlin) 25:101–113Google Scholar
  8. Harder LD (1982) Measurement and estimation of functional proboscis length in bumblebees (Hymenoptera; Apidae). Can J Zool 60:1073–1079Google Scholar
  9. Heinrich B (1976) Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumblebees. Ecology 57:874–889Google Scholar
  10. Hodges CM, Wolf LL (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:41–44Google Scholar
  11. Holm SN (1966) The utilization and management of bumble bees for red clover and alfalfa seed production. Ann Rev Ent 11:155–182Google Scholar
  12. Inouye DW (1980) The effect of proboscis and corolla tube lengths on patterns and rates of flower visitation by bumblebees. Oecologia (Berlin) 45:197–201Google Scholar
  13. Macior LW (1974) Pollination ecology of the Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Melanderia 15:1–59Google Scholar
  14. Menge JL (1974) Prey selection and foraging period of the predaceous rocky intertidal snail, Acanthina punculata. Oecologia (Berlin) 17:293–316Google Scholar
  15. Mittelbach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386Google Scholar
  16. Plowright RC, Jay SC (1966) Rearing bumble bee colonies in captivity. J Apicult Res 5:155–165Google Scholar
  17. Pomeroy N, Plowright RC (1980) Maintenance of bumble bee colonies in observation hives (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can Ent 112:321–326Google Scholar
  18. Pyke GH (1978) Optimal body size in bumblebees. Oecologia (Berlin) 34:255–266Google Scholar
  19. Ranta E, Lundberg H (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: the significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35:298–302Google Scholar
  20. Salt GW, Willard DE (1971) The hunting behavior and success of Forester's tern. Ecology 52:989–998Google Scholar
  21. Schlamowitz R, Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL (1976) On the tongues of sunbirds. Condor 78:104–107Google Scholar
  22. Schoener TW (1969) Models of optimal size for solitary predators. Am Nat 103:277–313Google Scholar
  23. Stapel C (1933) Undersøgelser over humlebier (Bombus Latr.), deres udbredelse, traekplanter og betydning for bestøningen af rødkløver (Trifolium pratense L.). Tidsskr Planteavl 39:193–294Google Scholar
  24. Teräs I (1976) Flower visits of bumblebees, Bombus Latr. (Hymenoptera, Apidae), during one summer. Ann Zool Fennici 13:200–232Google Scholar
  25. Thomson JD, Plowright RC (1980) Pollen carryover, nectar rewards, and pollinator behavior with special reference to Diervilla lonicera. Oecologia (Berlin) 46:68–74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence D. Harder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations