Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 149, Issue 2, pp 289–300 | Cite as

Bumblebees experience landscapes at different spatial scales: possible implications for coexistence

  • Catrin WestphalEmail author
  • Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
  • Teja Tscharntke
Community Ecology

Abstract

Coexistence in bumblebee communities has largely been investigated at local spatial scales. However, local resource partitioning does not fully explain the species diversity of bumblebee communities. Theoretical studies provide new evidence that partitioning of space can promote species coexistence, when species interact with their environment at different spatial scales. If bumblebee species possess specific foraging ranges, different spatial resource utilisation patterns might operate as an additional mechanism of coexistence in bumblebee communities. We investigated the effects of the landscape-wide availability of different resources (mass flowering crops and semi-natural habitats) on the local densities of four bumblebee species at 12 spatial scales (landscape sectors with 250–3,000 m radius) to indirectly identify the spatial scales at which the bumblebees perceive their environment. The densities of all bumblebee species were enhanced in landscapes with high proportions of mass flowering crops (mainly oilseed rape). We found the strongest effects for Bombus terrestris agg. and Bombus lapidarius at large spatial scales, implying foraging distances of 3,000 and 2,750 m, respectively. The densities of Bombus pascuorum were most strongly influenced at a medium spatial scale (1,000 m), and of Bombus pratorum (with marginal significance) at a small spatial scale (250 m). The estimated foraging ranges tended to be related to body and colony sizes, indicating that larger species travel over larger distances than smaller species, presumably enabling them to build up larger colonies through a better exploitation of food resources. We conclude that coexistence in bumblebee communities could potentially be mediated by species-specific differences in the spatial resource utilisation patterns, which should be considered in conservation schemes.

Keywords

Bombus spp. Pollination Foraging ranges Coexistence Resource partitioning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. Bronstein, T. Palmer, N. Waser, W. Kunin, and two anonymous referees for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, R. Trilck, M. Pauly, and H. Westphal for assistance in the field, C. Bürger for supporting GIS analyses, and the 16 farmers for providing the field sites. This work was supported by the Scholarship Program of the German Federal Environmental Foundation.

References

  1. Alford DV (1975) Bumblebees. Davis-Poynter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol Lett 6:1109–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bäckman J-PC, Tiainen J (2002) Habitat quality of field margins in a Finnish farmland area for bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Bombus and Psithyrus). Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basset A (1995) Body size-related coexistence: an approach through allometric constraints on home-range use. Ecology 76:1027–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers MA (1985a) Experimental analyses of competition between two species of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Oecologia 67:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers MA (1985b) Bumble bee colonization, and reproduction in subalpine meadows in Northeastern Utah. Ecology 66:914–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brian AD (1957) Differences in the flowers visited by four species of bumble-bees and their causes. J Anim Ecol 26:71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bronstein JL (1995) The plant-pollinator landscape. In: Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merriam G (eds) Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 256–288Google Scholar
  9. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Mitchell WA (1994) Foraging theory, patch use and the structure of a Negev Desert granivore community. Ecology 75:2286–2300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carvell C, Meek WR, Pywell RF, Nowakowski M (2004) The response of foraging bumblebees to successional change in newly created arable field margins. Biol Conserv 118:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman RE, Wang J, Bourke AFG (2003) Genetic analysis of spatial foraging patterns and resource sharing in bumble bee pollinators. Mol Ecol 12:2801–2808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chase JM, Wilson WG, Richards SA (2001) Foraging trade-offs and resource patchiness: theory and experiments with a freshwater snail community. Ecol Lett 4:304–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corbet SA (2000) Conserving compartments in pollination webs. Conserv Biol 14:1229–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 25:249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darvill B, Knight ME, Goulson D (2004) Use of genetic markers to quantify bumblebee foraging range and nest density. Oikos 107:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dornhaus A, Chittka L (1999) Evolutionary origins of bee dances. Nature 401:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dornhaus A, Chittka L (2001) Food alert in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): possible mechanisms and evolutionary implications. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:570–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dramstad W (1996) Do bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) really forage close to their nests? J Insect Behav 9:163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dramstad W, Fry G (1995) Foraging activity of bumblebees (Bombus) in relation to flower resources on arable land. Agric Ecosyst Environ 53:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dukas R, Edelstein-Keshet L (1998) The spatial distribution of colonial food provisioners. J Theor Biol 190:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Free JB, Ferguson AW (1980) Foraging of bees on oil-seed rape (Brassica napus L.) in relation to the stage of flowering and pest control. J Agric Sci Camb 94:151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gathmann A, Tscharntke T (2002) Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 71:757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goulson D (2003) Bumblebees. Behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Goulson D, Stout JC (2001) Homing ability of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 32:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. von Hagen E (1994) Hummeln: bestimmen, ansiedeln, vermehren, schützen, 4th edn. Naturbuch Verlag, AugsburgGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamilton WJ, Watt KE (1970) Refuging. Annu Rev Ecol Evol 1:263–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harder LD (1985) Morphology as a predictor of flower choice by bumble bees. Ecology 66:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartley S, Kunin WE (2003) Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conserv Biol 17:1559–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hedtke C (1994) Heimfindevermögen von Hummeln. In: Hedtke C (ed) Wildbienen. Länderinstitut für Bienenkunde Hohen Neuendorf, Lehnitz/Hohen Neuendorf, pp 113–123Google Scholar
  30. Heinrich B (1976a) The foraging specializations of individual bumblebees. Ecol Monogr 46:105–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heinrich B (1976b) Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumblebees. Ecology 57:874–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee Economics, 1st edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  33. Hill PSM, Hollis J, Wells H (2001) Foraging decisions in nectarivores: unexpected interactions between flower constancy and energetic rewards. Anim Behav 62:729–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inouye DW (1978) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: experimental studies of foraging behavior. Ecology 59:672–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson LK, Hubbell SP (1975) Contrasting foraging strategies and coexistence of two bee species on a single resource. Ecology 56:1398–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol 29:83–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kells AR, Goulson D (2003) Preferred nesting sites of bumblebee queens (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in agroecosystems in the UK. Biol Conserv 109:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kneitel JM, Chase JM (2004) Trade-offs in community ecology: linking spatial scales and species coexistence. Ecol Lett 7:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kotler BP, Brown JS (1988) Environmental heterogeneity and the coexistence of desert rodents. Annu Rev Ecol Evol 19:281–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mauss V (1996) Bestimmungsschlüssel für Hummeln, 6th edn. Deutscher Jugendbund für Naturbeobachtung, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  41. Mauss V, Schindler M (2002) Hummeln (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus) auf Magerrasen (Mesobromion) der Kalkeifel: Diversität, Schutzwürdigkeit und Hinweise zur Biotoppflege. Nat Landsch 77:485–492Google Scholar
  42. Meek B, Loxton D, Sparks T, Pywell R, Pickett H, Nowakowski M (2002) The effect of arable field margin composition on invertebrate diversity. Biol Conserv 106:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morse DH (1977) Resource partitioning in bumble bees: the role of behavioral factors. Science 197:678–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Nieuwstadt MLG, Iraheta CER (1996) Relation between size and foraging range in stingless bees (Apidae, Meliponinae). Apidologie 27:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oberdorfer E (1994) Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora, 7th edn. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  46. Osborne JL, Clark SJ, Morris RJ, Williams IH, Riley JR, Smith AD, Reynolds DR, Edwards AS (1999) A landscape-scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. J Appl Ecol 36:519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palmer TM, Stanton ML, Young TP (2003) Competition and coexistence: exploring mechanisms that restrict and maintain diversity within mutualist guilds. Am Nat 162:S63–S79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pekkarinen A (1984) Resource partitioning and coexistence in bumblebees (Hymenoptera, Bombinae). Ann Entomol Fenn 50:97–107Google Scholar
  49. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Potts SG, Vulliamy B, Dafni A, Ne’eman G, Willmer P (2003) Linking bees and flowers: how do floral communities structure pollinator communities? Ecology 84:2628–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ranta E (1982) Species structure of north European bumblebee communities. Oikos 38:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ranta E, Lundberg H (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: the significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35:298–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ranta E, Vepsäläinen K (1981) Why are there so many species? Spatio-temporal heterogeneity and northern bumblebee communities. Oikos 36:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ritchie ME, Olff H (1999) Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400:557–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roland J, Taylor PD (1997) Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386:710–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schaffer WM, Jensen DB, Hobbs DE (1979) Competition, foraging energetics, and the cost of sociality in three species of bees. Ecology 60:976–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmid-Hempel P, Müller C, Schmid-Hempel R, Shykoff JA (1990) Frequency and ecological correlates of parasitism by Conopid flies (Conopidae, Diptera) in populations of bumblebees. Insect Soc 37:14–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sowig P (1989) Effects of flowering plant’s patch size on species composition of pollinator communities, foraging strategies, and resource partitioning in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Oecologia 78:550–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steffan-Dewenter I, Kuhn A (2003) Honeybee foraging in differentially structured landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 270:569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Bürger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Svensson B, Langerlöf J, Svensson BG (2000) Habitat preferences of nest-seeking bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in an agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Teräs I (1985) Food plants and flower visits of bumblebees (Bombus: Hymenoptera, Apidae) in southern Finland. Acta Zool Fenn 179:1–120Google Scholar
  64. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  65. Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R (2000) Foraging habitats and foraging distances of bumblebees, Bombus spp. (Hym., Apidae), in an agricultural landscape. J Appl Entomol 124:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Waser NM, Chittka L, Price MV, Williams NM, Ollerton J (1996) Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77:1043–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecol Lett 6:961–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williams CS (1995) Conserving Europe’s bees: why all the buzz? Trends Ecol Evol 10:309–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williams IH, Christian DG (1991) Observations on Phacelia tanacetifolia Bentham (Hydrophyllaceae) as a food plant for honey bees and bumble bees. J Apicult Res 30:3–12Google Scholar
  70. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, N.J.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catrin Westphal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
    • 1
  • Teja Tscharntke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AgroecologyUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations