Oecologia

, 144:508 | Cite as

Bumblebees, humble pollinators or assiduous invaders? A population comparison of foraging performance in Bombus terrestris

Behavioural Ecology

Abstract

Worldwide trade in non-native bumblebees remains largely unrestricted despite well-documented cases where introductions of non-native bees have gone dramatically wrong. Within Europe, indiscriminate importation of non-native populations of bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) for the pollination of glasshouse crops continues on a massive scale. However, no risk assessment has been conducted for these introductions, perhaps because B. terrestris is considered a native species, so shipping populations from one region to another has been implicitly assumed to present no risk. This view is clearly unjustified because Bombus terrestris populations differ significantly in their genetic makeup as demonstrated by strong differences in coat colour and behavioural traits. Therefore, for the first time we compare an important competitive trait, namely foraging performance, between commercially available B. terrestris populations in contrasting environments. We test whether commercially reared populations differ in their nectar foraging performance and whether this is influenced by both their source environment and the one they are introduced into. We do this by means of a reciprocal transplant experiment. Strong, consistent inter-population differences in performance occurred irrespective of test location: Canary Island bees (B. t. canariensis) were superior to Sardinian bees (B. t. sassaricus), which were generally superior to mainland European bees (B. t. terrestris). These inter-population differences in performance were largely explained by inter-population variation in forager size, with larger bees being superior foragers. However, even when body size was accounted for, “native” bees were not superior to transplanted non-native bees in all but one case. We conclude that non-native populations, especially those with large foragers, can be highly competitive foragers. This could lead to their establishment and displacement of native bees. Therefore, we recommend that unregulated movements of non-native B. terrestris populations within Europe should not be carried out without a full risk assessment.

Keywords

Body size Bumblebee trade Invasive potential Island populations Local adaptation 

References

  1. Alford DV (1975) Bumblebees. Davis-Poynter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen T, Cameron S, McGinley R, Heinrich B (1978) The role of workers and new queens in the ergonomics of a bumblebee colony (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). J Kans Entomol Soc 51:329–342Google Scholar
  3. Beekman M, van Stratum P, Lingeman R (1998) Diapause survival and post-diapause performance in bumblebee queens (Bombus terrestris). Entomol Exp Et Appl 89:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JH, Lomolino MV (1998) Biogeography, 2nd edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Buttermore RE, Pomeroy N, Hobson W, Semmens T, Hart R (1998) Assessment of the genetic base of Tasmanian bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) for development as pollination agents. J Apicult Res 37:23–25Google Scholar
  6. Carruthers S (2003) Plight of the bumblebee. Practic Hydropon Greenhouses 69:23–30Google Scholar
  7. Carruthers S (2004) A bee’s eye view. Practical hydroponics and greenhouses 77:URL http://www.hydroponics.com.au/back_issues/issue77.html
  8. Carvell C (2002) Habitat use and conservation of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) under different grassland management regimes. Biol Conserv 103:33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Case TJ (1978) A general explanation for insular body size trends in terrestrial vertebrates. Ecology 59:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chittka L, Wells H (2004) Color vision in bees: mechanisms, ecology and evolution. In: Prete F (ed) How simple nervous systems create complex perceptual worlds. MIT Press, Boston, pp 165–191Google Scholar
  11. Chittka L, Ings TC, Raine NE (2004) Chance and adaptation in the evolution of island bumblebee behaviour. Popul Ecol 46:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Jonge R (1986) Crossing experiments with Bombus terrestris terrestris (Linnaeus,1758) and Bombus terrestris xanthopus (Kriechbaumer, 1870) and some notes on diapause and nosemose (Nosema) (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Phegea 14:19–23Google Scholar
  13. Diniz NM, Soares AEE, Sheppard WS, Del Lama MA (2003) Genetic structure of honeybee populations from southern Brazil and Uruguay. Genet Mol Biol 26:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards M (2001) UK BAP bumblebee working group report. Unpublished report for the UK BAP Bumblebee Working Group, MidhurstGoogle Scholar
  15. Estoup A, Solignac M, Cornuet J-M, Goudet J, Scholl A (1996) Genetic differentiation of continental and island populations of Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Europe. Mol Ecol 5:19–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fitter AH, Fitter RSR (2002) Rapid changes in flowering time in British plants. Science 296:1689–1691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster JB (1964) The evolution of mammals on islands. Nature 202:234–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goka K, Okabe K, Yoneda M, Niwa S (2001) Bumblebee commercialization will cause worldwide migration of parasitic mites. Mol Ecol 10:2095–2099PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goulson D (2003) Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goulson D, Darvill B (2004) Niche overlap and diet breadth in bumblebees; are rare species more specialized in the choice of flowers? Apidologie 35:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goulson D, Hughes WOH, Derwent LC, Stout JC (2002a) Colony growth of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, in improved and conventional agricultural and suburban habitats. Oecologia 130:267–273Google Scholar
  22. Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC, Hughes WOH (2002b) Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, be explained in terms of foraging efficiency? Anim Behav 64:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hergstrom K, Buttermore R, Seeman O, McCorkell B (2002) Environmental research on the impact of bumblebees in Australia and facilitation of national communication for/against further introduction. In: Horticulture Australia Project No: VG99033. Horticulture Australia Ltd, Sydney, and Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, HobartGoogle Scholar
  24. Hingston AB, McQuillan PB (1999) Displacement of Tasmanian native megachilid bees by the recently introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Aust J Zool 47:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hingston AB, Marsden-Smedley J, Driscoll DA, Corbett S, Fenton J, Anderson R, Plowman C, Mowling F, Jenkin M, Matsui K, Bonham KJ, Ilowski M, McQuillan PB, Yaxley B, Reid T, Storey D, Poole L, Mallick SA, Fitzgerald N, Kirkpatrick JB, Febey J, Harwood AG, Michaels KF, Russell MJ, Black PG, Emmerson L, Visoiu M, Morgan J, Breen S, Gates S, Bantich MN, Desmarchelier JM (2002) Extent of invasion of Tasmanian native vegetation by the exotic bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apoidea: Apidae). Aust Ecol 27:162–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hulme M, Jenkins GJ, Lu X, Turnpenny JR, Mitchell TD, Jones RG, Lowe J, Murphy JM, Hassell D, Boorman P, McDonald R, Hill S (2002) Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom. In: The UKCIP02 scientific report. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, p 120Google Scholar
  27. Kawecki TJ, Ebert D (2004) Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol Lett 7:1225–1241, DOI: 10.1111/j.1461–0248.2004.00684xGoogle Scholar
  28. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lomolino MV (1985) Body size of mammals on islands: the island rule reexamined. Am Nat 125:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mand M, Mand R, Williams IH (2002) Bumblebees in the agricultural landscape of Estonia. Agr Ecosyst Environ 89:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matsumura C, Nakajima M, Yokoyama J, Washitani I (2004) High reproductive ability of an alien bumblebee invader, Bombus terrestris L., in the Hidaka region of southern Hokkaido, Japan. Jpn J Conserv Ecol 9:93–102Google Scholar
  32. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moller H (1996) Lessons for invasion theory from social insects. Biol Conserv 78:125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morandin LA, Laverty TM, Kevan PG, Khosla S, Shipp L (2001) Bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) activity and loss in commercial tomato greenhouses. Can Entomol 133:883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olden JD, LeRoy Poff N, Douglas MR, Douglas ME, Fausch KD (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends Ecol Evol 19:18–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oldroyd BP (1999) Coevolution while you wait: Varroa jacobsoni, a new parasite of western honeybees. Trends Ecol Evol 14:312–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Palmer M (2002) Testing the ’island rule’ for a tenebrionid beetle (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). Acta Oecologica Int J Ecol 23:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pelletier L, McNeil JN (2003) The effect of food supplementation on reproductive success in bumblebee field colonies. Oikos 103:688–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rasmont P (1997) Ecologie et distribution de Bombus terrestris (L.) dans la region mediterraneenne. In: XXXV Congres International d’Apiculture, 1997, pp 178–179Google Scholar
  40. R Development Core Team (2004) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In: R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruz L, Herrera R (2001) Preliminary observations on foraging activities if Bombus dahlbomii and Bombus terrestris (Hym: Apidae) on native and non-native vegetation in Chile. Acta Hort 561:165–169Google Scholar
  42. Schmid-Hempel R, Schmid-Hempel P (1998) Colony performance and immunocompetence of a social insect, Bombus terrestris, in poor and variable environments. Funct Ecol 12:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spaethe J, Chittka L (2003) Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. J Exp Biol 206:3447–3453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spaethe J, Weidenmüller A (2002) Size variation and foraging rate in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Insect Soc 49:142–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stout JC, Kells AR, Goulson D (2002) Pollination of the invasive exotic shrub Lupinus arboreus (Fabaceae) by introduced bees in Tasmania. Biol Conserv 106:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Velthuis HHW (2002) The historical background of the domestication of the bumble-bee, Bombus terrestris, and its introduction in agriculture. In: Kevan P, Imperatriz Fonseca VL (eds) Pollinating bees—the conservation link between agriculture and nature. Ministry of Environment, Brazil, pp 177–184Google Scholar
  47. Widmer A, Schmid-Hempel P, Estoup A, Scholl A (1998) Population genetic structure and colonization history of Bombus terrestris s.l. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from the Canary Islands and Madeira. Heredity 81:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas C Ings
    • 1
  • Juliette Schikora
    • 2
  • Lars Chittka
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesQueen Mary, University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Zoologie II, BiozentrumUniversität WürzburgWurzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations