Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 152–156 | Cite as

Effects of experience and weather on foraging rate and pollen versus nectar collection in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris

  • James Peat
  • Dave Goulson
Original Article

Abstract

This study examines factors that affect foraging rate of free-flying bumblebees, Bombus terrestris, when collecting nectar, and also what factors determine whether they collect pollen or nectar. We show that nectar foraging rate (mass gathered per unit time) is positively correlated with worker size, in accordance with previous studies. It has been suggested that the greater foraging rate of large bees is due to their higher thermoregulatory capacity in cool conditions, but our data suggest that this is not so. Workers differing in size were not differentially affected by the weather. Regardless of size, naïve bees were poor foragers, often using more resources than they gathered. Foraging rate was not maximised until at least 30 trips had been made from the nest. Foraging rates were positively correlated with humidity, perhaps because nectar secretion rates were higher or evaporation of nectar lower at high humidity. Temperature, wind speed and cloud cover did not significantly influence foraging rate, within the summertime range that occurred during the study. Weather greatly influenced whether bees collected pollen or nectar. Pollen was preferably collected when it was warm, windy, and particularly when humidity was low; and preferably during the middle of the day. We suggest that bees collect pollen in dry conditions, and avoid collecting pollen when there is dew or rain-water droplets on the vegetation, which would make grooming pollen into the corbiculae difficult. Availability of sufficient dry days for pollen collection may be an important factor determining the success of bumblebee colonies.

Keywords

Humidity Size variation Temperature Thermoregulation Wind 

References

  1. Capaldi EA, Dyer FC (1999) The role of orientation flights on homing performance in honeybees. J Exp Biol 202:1655–1666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Crawley MJ (1993) GLIM for ecologists. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Cresswell JE (1990) How and why do nectar-foraging bumblebees initiate movements between inflorescences of wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa (Lamiaceae). Oecologia 82:450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cresswell JE, Osborne JL, Goulson D (2000) An economic model of the limits to foraging range in central place foragers with numerical solutions for bumblebees. Ecol Entomol 25:249–255Google Scholar
  5. Dreisig H (1995) Ideal free distributions of nectar foraging bumblebees. Oikos 72:161–172Google Scholar
  6. Dukas R, Real, LA (1993a) Learning constraints and floral choice behaviour in bumblebees. Anim Behav 46:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dukas R, Real LA (1993b) Effects of recent experience on foraging decisions by bumblebees. Oecologia 94:244–246Google Scholar
  8. Dukas R, Real LA (1993c) Effects of nectar variance on learning by bumblebees. Anim Behav 45:37–41Google Scholar
  9. Goulson D (1994) A model to predict the role of flower constancy in inter-specific competition between insect pollinated flowers. J Theor Biol 168:309–314Google Scholar
  10. Goulson D (1999) Foraging strategies for gathering nectar and pollen in insects. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 2:185–209Google Scholar
  11. Goulson D (2000a) Are insects flower constant because they use search images to find flowers? Oikos 88:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goulson D (2000b) Why do pollinators visit proportionally fewer flowers in large patches? Oikos 91:485–492Google Scholar
  13. Goulson D (2003) Bumblebees; their behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Goulson D, Cory JS (1993) Flower constancy and learning in the foraging behaviour of the green-veined white butterfly, Pieris napi. Ecol Entomol 18:315–320Google Scholar
  15. Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC, Hughes WOH (2002) Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris be explained in terms of foraging efficiency? Anim Behav 64:123–130Google Scholar
  16. Heinrich B (1975) Thermoregulation in bumblebees. II. Energetics of warmup and free flight. J Comp Physiol 96:155–166Google Scholar
  17. Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  18. Keasar T, Motro U, Shur Y, Shmida A (1996) Overnight memory retention of foraging skills by bumblebees is imperfect. Anim Behav 52:95–104Google Scholar
  19. Laverty TM (1980) Bumble bee foraging: floral complexity and learning. Can J Zool 58:1324–1335Google Scholar
  20. Laverty TM, Plowright RC (1988) Flower handling by bumblebees—a comparison of specialists and generalists. Anim Behav 36:733–740Google Scholar
  21. Lewis AC (1986) Memory constraints and flower choice in Pieris rapae. Science 232:863–865Google Scholar
  22. Menzel R (1999) Memory dynamics in the honeybee. J Comp Physiol 185:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spaethe J, Chittka L (2003) Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. J Exp Biol 206:3447–3453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spaethe J, Weidenmuller A (2002) Size variation and foraging rate in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Insect Soc 49:142–146Google Scholar
  25. Wolf TJ, Ellington CP, Davis S, Fletham MJ (1996) Validation of the doubly labelled water technique for bumblebees Bombus terrestris (L.). J Exp Biol 199:959–972Google Scholar
  26. Wolf TJ, Ellington CP, Begley IS (1999) Foraging costs in bumblebees: field conditions cause large individual differences. Insect Soc 46:291–295Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biodiversity and Ecology Division, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonU.K.

Personalised recommendations