Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 191–200 | Cite as

Pollen load diversity and foraging niche overlap in a pollinator community of the rare Dictamnus albus L.

  • Alessandro Fisogni
  • Marino Quaranta
  • Francesca-Vittoria Grillenzoni
  • Francesca Corvucci
  • Natasha de Manincor
  • Gherardo Bogo
  • Laura Bortolotti
  • Marta Galloni
Original Paper


Bees collect pollen as an important resource for offspring development while acting as pollen vectors for the plants visited. Foraging preferences of pollinators together with plant species availability shape the web of interactions at the local scale. In this study, we focused on the bee pollinator community of a population of the rare protected perennial herb Dictamnus albus, with the aim to characterise the pollen preferences and the foraging niche overlap among species through time. Bees were sampled during four consecutive years in a natural population of D. albus, throughout the blooming period of the plant species. We performed an analysis of insect pollen loads to investigate the interactions with the study species and the co-flowering plants in the area, and to evaluate the degree of foraging overlap among pollinators. Over the study years, all bee species showed a high fidelity to D. albus (60–80%), even if some taxa preferentially collected pollen from other flowering species. The foraging niche overlap in the pollinator community decreased together with an increased diversity of co-flowering plant species. The results obtained indicate that bees preferentially forage on D. albus in the studied area, but that co-flowering species contribute to complement their diet and likely reduce competition for foraging resources. It appears therefore important to maintain a high diversity of co-flowering plants to preserve the diversity in the studied pollinator community of D. albus.


Bees Conservation Dictamnus albus Entomopalynology Pollinators Resource use 



This work was performed within the Life + Project PP-ICON (Plant-Pollinator CONservation approach: a demonstrative proposal – LIFE09/NAT/IT000212) funded by the European Union. We thank the “Ente di gestione per i Parchi e la Biodiversità – Emilia Orientale” for permitting work in the field, and Elisa Monterastelli and the students that helped with field work and data collection.

Supplementary material

11829_2017_9581_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 14 kb)
11829_2017_9581_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 14 kb)


  1. Alarcón R (2010) Congruence between visitation and pollen-transport networks in a California plant–pollinator community. Oikos 119:35–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronne G (2017) Identification of bottlenecks in the plant life cycle for sustainable conservation of rare and endangered species. Front Ecol Evol 5:76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fairbrass AJ, Falk SJ, Hale JD, Matthews TJ (2011) Changing bee and hoverfly pollinator assemblages along an urban-rural gradient. PLoS ONE 6:e23459. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Beil M, Horn H, Schwabe A (2008) Analysis of pollen loads in a wild bee community (Hymenoptera: Apidae)—a method for elucidating habitat use and foraging distances. Apidologie 39:456–467. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bortolotti L, Bogo G, de Manincor N, Fisogni A, Galloni M (2016) Integrated conservation of bee pollinators of a rare plant in a protected area near Bologna, Italy. Conserv Evid 13:51–56Google Scholar
  6. Bosch J, Martín González AM, Rodrigo A, Navarro D (2009) Plant–pollinator networks: adding the pollinator’s perspective. Ecol Lett 12:409–419. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burd M (1994) Bateman’s principle and reproduction: the role of pollinator limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot Rev 60:83–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvalho DM, Presley SJ, Santos GMM (2014) Niche overlap and network specialization of flower-visiting bees in an agricultural system. Neotrop Entomol 43:489–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvell C, Westrich P, Meek WR, Pywell RF, Nowakowski M (2006) Assessing the value of annual and perennial forage mixtures for bumblebees by direct observation and pollen analysis. Apidologie 37:326–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Couvillon MJ, Walter CM, Blows EM, Czaczkes TJ, Alton KL, Ratnieks FLW (2015) Busy bees: variation in insect flower-visiting rates across multiple plant species. Psyche. Google Scholar
  11. Eckhardt M, Haider M, Dorn S, Müller A (2014) Pollen mixing in pollen generalist solitary bees: a possible strategy to complement or mitigate unfavourable pollen properties? J Anim Ecol 83:588–597. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott S (2009) Subalpine bumble bee foraging distances and densities in relation to flower availability. Environ Entomol 38:748–756. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisogni A, Cristofolini G, Rossi M, Galloni M (2011) Pollinator directionality as a response to nectar gradient: promoting outcrossing while avoiding geitonogamy. Plant Biol 13:848–856. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisogni A, Rossi M, Sgolastra F, Bortolotti L, Bogo G, de Manincor N, Quaranta M, Galloni M (2016) Seasonal and annual variations in the pollination efficiency of a pollinator community of Dictamnus albus L. Plant Biol 18:445–454. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fontaine C, Collin CL, Dajoz I (2008) Generalist foraging of pollinators: diet expansion at high density. J Ecol 96:1002–1010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forup ML, Memmott J (2005) The restoration of plant–pollinator interactions in hay meadows. Restor Ecol 13:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gathmann A, Tscharntke T (2002) Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 71:757–764. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Génissel A, Aupinel P, Bressac C, Tasei J-N, Chevrier C (2002) Influence of pollen origin on performance of Bombus terrestris micro-colonies. Entomol Exp Appl 104:329–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson RH, Nelson IL, Hopkins GW, Hamlett BJ, Memmott J (2006) Pollinator webs, plant communities and the conservation of rare plants: arable weeds as a case study. J Appl Ecol 43:246–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goulson D, Darvill B (2004) Niche overlap and diet breadth in bumblebees; are rare species more specialized in their choice of flowers? Apidologie 35:55–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenleaf SS, Williams NM, Winfree R, Kremen C (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153:589–596. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanley ME, Franco M, Pichon S, Darvill B, Goulson D (2008) Breeding system, pollinator choice and variation in pollen quality in British herbaceous plants. Funct Ecol 22:592–598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harder LD (1990) Behavioral responses by bumble bees to variation in pollen availability. Oecologia 85:41–47. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hausmann SL, Petermann JS, Rolff J (2016) Wild bees as pollinators of city trees. Insect Conserv Divers 9:97–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hensen I, Oberprieler C (2005) Effects of population size on genetic diversity and seed production in the rare Dictamnus albus (Rutaceae) in central Germany. Conserv Genet 6:63–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jedrzejewska-Szmek K, Zych M (2013) Flower-visitor and pollen transport networks in a large city: structure and properties. Arthropod Plant Interact 7:503–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kämper W, Werner PK, Hilpert A, Westphal C, Blüthgen N, Eltz T, Leonhardt SD (2016) How landscape, pollen intake and pollen quality affect colony growth in Bombus terrestris. Landsc Ecol 31:2245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser N (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant–pollinator interactions. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 29:83–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kleijn D, Raemakers I (2008) A retrospective analysis of pollen host plant use by stable and declining bumble bee species. Ecology 89:1811–1823. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein A-M, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharnke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B 274:303–313. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Konzmann S, Lunau K (2014) Divergent rules for pollen and nectar foraging bumblebees—A laboratory study with artificial flowers offering diluted nectar substitute and pollen surrogate. PLoS ONE 9:e91900. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Krebs CJ (2014) Ecological methodology. Accessed 16 Sept 2016
  33. Kriesell L, Hilpert A, Leonhardt SD (2016) Different but the same: bumblebee species collect pollen of different plant sources but similar amino acid profiles. Apidologie. Google Scholar
  34. Kunin WE, Iwasa Y (1996) Pollinator foraging strategies in mixed floral arrays: density effects and floral constancy. Theor Pop Biol 49:232–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larson DL, Droege S, Rabie PA, Larson JL, Devalez J, Haar M, McDermott-Kubeczko M (2014) Using a network modularity analysis to inform management of a rare endemic plant in the northern Great Plains, USA. J Appl Ecol 51:1024–1032. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leonhardt SD, Blüthgen N (2012) The same, but different: pollen foraging in honeybee and bumblebee colonies. Apidologie 43:449–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lopezaraiza-Mikel M, Hayes MB, Whalley MR, Memmott J (2007) The impact of an alien plant on a native plant–pollinator network: an experimental approach. Ecol Lett 10:539–550. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayer C, Michez D, Chyzy A, Brédat E, Jacquemart A-L (2012) The abundance and pollen foraging behaviour of bumble bees in relation to population size of whortleberry (Vaccinium uliginosum). PLoS ONE 7:e50353. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Moerman R, Vanderplanck M, Roger N, Declèves S, Wathelet B, Rasmont P, Fournier D, Michez D (2015) Growth rate of bumblebee larvae is related to pollen amino acids. J Econ Entomol 109:25–30. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Moquet L, Mayer C, Michez D, Wathelet B, Jaquemart A-L (2015) Early spring floral foraging resources for pollinators in wet heathlands in Belgium. J Insect Conserv 19:837–848. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nicolson SW (2007) Nectar consumers. In: Nicolson SW, Nepi M, Pacini E (eds) Nectaries and nectar. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 289–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nicolson SW, Thornburg RW (2007) Nectar chemistry. In: Nicolson SW, Nepi M, Pacini E (eds) Nectaries and nectar. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 215–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2016) Vegan: community ecology package. R package ver. 2.3-5Google Scholar
  45. Osborne JL, Martin AP, Carreck NL, Swain JL, Knight ME, Goulson D, Hale RJ, Sanderson RA (2008) Bumblebee flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. J Anim Ecol 77:406–415. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Parker AJ, Tran JL, Ison JL, Bai JDK, Weis AE, Thomson JD (2015) Pollen packing affects the function of pollen on corbiculate bees but not non-corbiculate bees. Arthropod-Plant Interact 9:197–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pawlikowski T (2010) Pollination activity of bees (Apoidea: Apiformes) visiting the flowers of Tilia cordata Mill. and Tilia tomentosa Moench in an urban environment. J Apic Sci 54:73–79Google Scholar
  48. Persano Oddo L, Ricciardelli D’Albore G (1989) Nomenclatura melissopalinologica. Apicoltura 5:63–72Google Scholar
  49. Pinzauti M, Rondinini T, Niccolini L, Felicioli A (2002) Investigation of the germinating potential of pollen transported by some bees. Insect Soc Life 4:107–114Google Scholar
  50. Popic TJ, Wardle GM, Davila YC (2013) Flower-visitor networks only partially predict the function of pollen transport by bees. Austral Ecol 38:76–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Quaranta M (1998) The diet of five common species of bumblebees (Bombus Latr.: Hymenoptera, Apidae) in natural conditions. Insect Soc Life 2:151–155Google Scholar
  52. Quiroz-Garcia DL, Martinez-Hernandez E, Palacios-Chavez R, Galindo-Miranda NE (2001) Nest provisions and pollen foraging in three species of solitary bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from Jalisco, Mexico. J Kans Entomol Soc 74:61–69Google Scholar
  53. Roulston TH, Cane JH (2002) The effect of pollen protein concentration on body size in the sweat bee Lasioglossum zephyrum (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Evol Ecol 16:49–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roulston TH, Goodell K (2011) The role of resources and risks in regulating wild bee populations. Ann Rev Entomol 56:293–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schnittler M, Günther KF (1999) Central European vascular plants requiring priority conservation measures—an analysis from national Red Lists and distribution maps. Biodivers Conserv 8:891–925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sedivy C, Müller A, Dorn S (2011) Closely related pollen generalist bees differ in their ability to develop on the same pollen diet: evidence for physiological adaptations to digest pollen. Funct Ecol 25:718–725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tasei J-N, Aupinel P (2008) Nutritive value of 15 single pollens and pollen mixes tested on larvae produced by bumblebee workers (Bombus terrestris, Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 39:397–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomson JD, Goodell K (2001) Pollen removal and deposition by honeybee and bumblebee visitors to apple and almond flowers. J Appl Ecol 38:1032–1044. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thorp RW (2000) The collection of pollen by bees. Plant Syst Evol 222:211–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tur C, Vigalondo B, Trøjelsgaard K, Olesen JM, Traveset A (2014) Downscaling pollen–transport networks to the level of individuals. J Anim Ecol 83:306–317. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Vanderplanck M, Moerman R, Rasmont P, Lognay G, Wathelet B, Wattiez R, Michez D (2014) How does pollen chemistry impact development and feeding behaviour of polylectic bees? PLoS ONE 9:e86209. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Vaudo AD, Tooker JF, Grozinger CM, Patch HM (2015) Bee nutrition and floral resource restoration. Curr Opin Insect Sci 10:133–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vaudo AD, Patch HM, Mortensen DA, Tookera JF, Grozinger GM (2016) Macronutrient ratios in pollen shape bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) foraging strategies and floral preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Wickham H, Chang W (2016) An implementation of the grammar of graphics. R package ver. 2.1.0Google Scholar
  65. Young HJ, Stanton ML (1990) Influences of floral variation on pollen removal and seed production in wild radish. Ecology 71:536–547. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zurbuchen A, Landert L, Klaiber J, Müller A, Hein S, Dorn S (2010) Maximum foraging ranges in solitary bees: only few individuals have the capability to cover long foraging distances. Biol Conserv 143:669–676. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zych M (2007) On flower visitors and true pollinators: the case of protandrous Heracleum sphondylium L. (Apiaceae). Plant Syst Evol 263:159–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Fisogni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marino Quaranta
    • 3
  • Francesca-Vittoria Grillenzoni
    • 4
  • Francesca Corvucci
    • 4
  • Natasha de Manincor
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gherardo Bogo
    • 1
    • 4
  • Laura Bortolotti
    • 4
  • Marta Galloni
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze Biologiche, Geologiche e AmbientaliUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8198 - Evo-Eco-PaleoLilleFrance
  3. 3.Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agrariaCentro di ricerca Difesa e Certificazione (CREA-DC)FlorenceItaly
  4. 4.Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agrariaCentro di Ricerca Agricoltura e Ambiente (CREA-AA)BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations