Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 13, pp 3269–3288 | Cite as

Diet breadth, coexistence and rarity in bumblebees

Original Paper

Abstract

Factors that determine the relative abundance of bumblebee species remain poorly understood, rendering management of rare and declining species difficult. Studies of bumblebee communities in the Americas suggest that there are strong competitive interactions between species with similar length tongues, and that this competition determines the relative abundance of species. In contrast, in Europe it is common to observe several short-tongued species coexisting with little or no evidence for competition shaping community structure. In this study we examine patterns of abundance and distribution in one of the most diverse bumblebee communities in Europe, found in the mountains of southern Poland. We quantify forage use when collecting nectar and pollen for 23 bumblebee species, and examine patterns of co-occurrence and niche overlap to determine whether there is evidence for inter-specific competition. We also test whether rarity can be explained by diet breadth. Up to 16 species were found coexisting within single sites, with species richness peaking in mountain pasture at ~1,000 m altitude. Results concur with previous studies indicating that the majority of pollen collected by bumblebees is from Fabaceae, but that some bee species (e.g. B. ruderatus) are much more heavily dependent on Fabaceae than others (e.g. B. lucorum). Those species that forage primarily on Fabaceae tended to have long tongues. In common with studies in the UK, diet breadth was correlated with abundance: rarer species tended to visit fewer flower species, after correcting for differences in sample size. No evidence was found for similarity in tongue length or dietary overlap influencing the likelihood of co-occurrence of species. However, the most abundant species (which co-occurred at most sites) occupied distinct dietary niche space. While species with tongues of similar length tended, overall, to have higher dietary niche overlap, among the group of abundant short-tongued species that commonly co-occurred there was marked dietary differentiation which may explain their coexistence.

Keywords

Hymenoptera Bombus Community composition Forage use Tongue length Pollen Competition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by a grant from the British Ecological Society. Ben Darvill is funded by the Leverhulme Trust, and Gillian Lye by a NERC studentship. Thanks are due to Dr Paul Williams for comments on the MS.

References

  1. Barrow DA, Pickard RS (1984) Size-related selection of food plants by bumblebees. Ecol Entomol 9:369–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1984.tb00832.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brian AD (1954) The foraging of bumble bees Part 1. Foraging behaviour. Bee World 35:61–67Google Scholar
  3. Brian AD (1957) Differences in the flowers visited by four species of bumble-bees and their causes. J Anim Ecol 21:223–240. doi: 10.2307/1959 Google Scholar
  4. Buchmann SL, Nabhan GP (1996) The forgotten pollinators. Island Press, Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  5. Carvell C (2002) Habitat use and conservation of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) under different grassland management regimes. Biol Conserv 103:33–49. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00114-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colwell RK, Futuyma DJ (1971) On the measurement of niche breadth and overlap. Ecology 52:567–576. doi: 10.2307/1934144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs-high diversity of trees and corals is maintained only in a non-equilibrium state. Science 199:1302–1310. doi: 10.1126/science.199.4335.1302 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards M (1998) U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan Bumblebee Working Group Report 1998. Unpublished report for the UK BAP bumblebee working group, Midhurst, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzpatrick U, Murray TE, Paxton RJ, Breen J, Cotton D, Santorum V et al (2007) Rarity and decline in bumblebees-A test of causes and correlates in the Irish fauna. Biol Conserv 136:185–194. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goulson D (2003a) Bumblebees; their behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 234 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Goulson D (2003b) Conserving wild bees for crop pollination. Int J Food Agric Environ 1:142–144Google Scholar
  12. Goulson D, Darvill B (2004) Niche overlap and diet breadth in bumblebees; are rare species more specialized in their choice of flowers? Apidologie (Celle) 35:55–64. doi: 10.1051/apido:2003062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goulson D, Hanley ME (2004) Distribution and forage use of exotic bumblebees in South Island, New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 28:225–232Google Scholar
  14. Goulson D, Stout JC, Hawson SA, Allen JA (1998) Floral display size in comfrey, Symphytum officinale L. (Boraginaceae); relationships with visitation by three bumblebee species and subsequent seed set. Oecologia 113:502–508. doi: 10.1007/s004420050402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC et al (2002b) Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris be explained in terms of foraging efficiency? Anim Behav 64:123–130. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.3041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goulson D, Hanley ME, Darvill B, Ellis JS, Knight ME (2005) Causes of rarity in bumblebees. Biol Conserv 122:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goulson D, Hanley ME, Darvill B, Ellis JS (2006) Biotope associations and the decline of bumblebees (Bombus spp.). J Insect Conserv 10:95–103. doi: 10.1007/s10841-006-6286-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham L, Jones KN (1996) Resource partitioning and per-flower foraging efficiency in 2 bumble bee species. Am Midl Nat 136:401–406. doi: 10.2307/2426743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harder LD (1985) Morphology as a predictor of flower choice by bumblebees. Ecology 66:198–210. doi: 10.2307/1941320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heinrich B (1976) Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumblebees. Ecology 57:874–889. doi: 10.2307/1941054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbs GA, Nummi WO, Virostek JF (1961) Food-gathering behaviour of honey, bumble, and leaf-cutter bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in Alberta. Can Entomol 93:409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbs GA, Nummi WO, Virostek JF (1962) Managing colonies of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) for pollination purposes. Can Entomol 94:1121–1132Google Scholar
  24. Holm SN (1966) The utilization and management of bumblebees for red clover and alfalfa seed production. Annu Rev Entomol 11:155–182. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.11.010166.001103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howard DC, Watkins JW, Clarke RT, Barnett CL, Stark GJ (2003) Estimating the extent and change in broad habitats in Great Britain. J Environ Manage 67:219–227. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00175-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Inouye DW (1978) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: experimental studies of foraging behavior. Ecology 59:672–678. doi: 10.2307/1938769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inouye DW (1980) The effects of proboscis and corolla tube lengths on patterns and rates of flower visitation by bumblebees. Oecologia 45:197–201. doi: 10.1007/BF00346460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jennersten O, Berg L, Lehman C (1988) Phenological differences in pollinator visitation, pollen deposition and seed set in the sticky catchfly Viscaria vulgaris. J Ecol 76:1111–1132. doi: 10.2307/2260638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson RA (1986) Intraspecific resource partitioning in the bumble bees Bombus ternarius and B. pensylvanicus. Ecology 67:133–138. doi: 10.2307/1938511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kells AR, Holland J, Goulson D (2001) The value of uncropped field margins for foraging bumblebees. J Insect Conserv 5:283–291. doi: 10.1023/A:1013307822575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kosior A (1995) Changes in the fauna of bumble-bees (Bombus Latr.) and cuckoo-bees (Psithyrus Lep.) of selected regions in southern Poland. In: Banaszak J (ed) Changes in fauna of wild bees in Europe. Pedagogical University, Bydgoszcz, pp 103–111Google Scholar
  32. Kosior A, Celary W, Olejnikzak P, Fijal J, Krol W, Solarz W et al (2007) The decline of the bumble bees and cuckoo bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombini) of Western and Central Europe. Oryx 41:79–88. doi: 10.1017/S0030605307001597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liedloff A (1999) Mantel nonparametric test calculator (version 2.0). Available from http://www.sci.qut.edu.au/NRS/Mantel.htm
  34. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its management. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Manly BFJ (1986) Randomization and regression methods for testing for associations with geographical, environmental and biological distances between populations. Res Popul Ecol (Kyoto) 28:201–218. doi: 10.1007/BF02515450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Osborne JL, Corbet SA (1994) Managing habitats for pollinators in farmland. Asp Appl Biol 40:207–215Google Scholar
  37. Peat J, Goulson D (2005) Effects of experience and weather on foraging efficiency and pollen versus nectar collection in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:152–156. doi: 10.1007/s00265-005-0916-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peat J, Tucker J, Goulson D (2005) Does intraspecific size variation in bumblebees allow colonies to efficiently exploit diverse floral resources? Ecol Entomol 30:176–181. doi: 10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00676.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prys-Jones OE (1982) Ecological studies of foraging and life history in bumblebees. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. Prys-Jones OE, Corbet SA (1991) Bumblebees. Richmond Publishing Company, SloughGoogle Scholar
  41. Pyke GH (1982) Local geographic distributions of bumblebees near Crested Butte, Colorado: competition and community structure. Ecology 63:555–573. doi: 10.2307/1938970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ranta E (1982) Species structure of North European bumblebee communities. Oikos 38:202–209. doi: 10.2307/3544020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ranta E (1983) Proboscis length and the coexistence of bumblebee species. Oikos 43:189–196. doi: 10.2307/3544768 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ranta E, Lundberg H (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: the significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35:298–302. doi: 10.2307/3544643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ranta E, Lundberg H, Teräs I (1981) Patterns of resource utilization in two Fennoscandian bumblebee communities. Oikos 36:1–11. doi: 10.2307/3544371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ranta E, Tiainen M (1982) Structure in seven bumblebee communities in eastern Finland in relation to resource availability. Holarct Ecol 5:48–54Google Scholar
  47. Ranta E, Vepsäläinen K (1981) Why are there so many species? Spatio-temporal heterogeneity and northern bumblebee communities. Oikos 36:28–34. doi: 10.2307/3544375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rasmont P (1988) Monographie écologique et zoogéographique des bourdons de France et de Belgique (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombinae). Ph.D. thesis, Faculté des Sciences Agronomique de l’Etat, Gembloux, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  49. Rasmont P (1995) How to restore the apoid diversity in Belgium and France? Wrong and right ways, or the end of protection paradigm!. In: Banaszak J (ed) Changes in fauna of wild bees in Europe. Pedagogical University, Bydgoszcz, pp 53–64Google Scholar
  50. Simpson GH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. doi: 10.1038/163688a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tepedino VJ, Stanton NL (1981) Diversity and competition in bee-plant communities on short-grass prairie. Oikos 36:35–44. doi: 10.2307/3544376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Teräs I (1976) Flower visits of bumblebees, Bombus Latr. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) during one summer. Ann Zool Fenn 13:200–232Google Scholar
  53. Teräs I (1985) Food plants and flower visits of bumble-bees (Bombus: Hymenoptera, Apidae) in southern Finland. Acta Zool Fenn 179:1–120Google Scholar
  54. Westrich P (1996) Habitat requirements of central European bees and the problems of partial habitats. In: Matheson A, Buchmann SL, O’Toole C, Westrich P, Williams IH (eds) The conservation of bees. Academic Press, London, pp 2–16Google Scholar
  55. Westrich P, Schwenninger H-R, Dathe H, Riemann H, Saure C, Voith J et al (1998) Rote Liste der Bienen (Hymenoptera: Apidae). In: Rote Liste Gefährdeter Tiere Deutschlands. Ed. By Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Naturschutz 55, Bonn, Schriftenr. Landschaftspf, pp 119–129Google Scholar
  56. Williams PH (1982) The distribution and decline of British bumble bees (Bombus Latr). J Apic Res 21:236–245Google Scholar
  57. Williams PH (1985a) A preliminary cladistic investigation of relationships among the bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Syst Entomol 10:239–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.1985.tb00529.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williams PH (1985b) On the distribution of bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae), with particular regard to patterns within the British Isles. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK, 180ppGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams PH (1986) Environmental change and the distribution of British bumble bees (Bombus Latr.). Bee World 67:50–61Google Scholar
  60. Williams PH (1988) Habitat use by bumble bees (Bombus spp.). Ecol Entomol 13:223–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1988.tb00350.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williams PH (1989) Why are there so many species of bumble bees at Dungeness? Bot J Linn Soc 101:31–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1989.tb00134.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams PH (1991) The bumble bees of the Kashmir Himalaya (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bull Br Mus (Natural History) 60:1–204Google Scholar
  63. Williams PH (2005) Does specialization explain rarity and decline among British bumblebees? A response to Goulson et al. Biol Conserv 122:33–43. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams PH, Araujo MB, Rasmont P (2007) Can vulnerability among British bumblebee (Bombus) species be explained by niche position and breadth? Biol Conserv 138:493–505. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological & Environmental SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations