Skip to main content
Log in

Floral constancy in bumble bees: handling efficiency or perceptual conditioning?

  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Individual bees often prefer flowers of the same species that they are already foraging on, and other individual bees prefer other flowers. This “floral constancy” has classically been explained as a learned behavior by which bees avoid wasting time switching between handling techniques. Choice trails were given to Bombus vagans workers that were freely foraging in mixed and pure fields of Trifolium pratense, T. repens, Viccia cracca, and Prunella vulgaris. Contrary to expectation, (1) bees showed if anything a stronger preference for their flower type in pure fields where they lacked experience than in a mixed field where they had had the opportunity to learn, (2) there was greater constancy in a mixed field of the two morphologically similar Trifolium species than in a mixed field of the morphologically disparate T. pratense and P. vulgaris, and (3) bees were more willing to switch between flowers of distinct morphologies when the colors were similar than between flowers of distinct colors when the morphologies were similar. We suggest that constancy is due to some form of perceptual conditioning whereby individual bees become temporarily sensitized to one or a few floral cues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bateman AJ (1951) The taxonomic discrimination of bees. Heredity 5: 271–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittka L (1992) The colour hexagon: a chromaticity diagram based on photoreceptor excitations as a generalized representation of colour opponency. J Comp Physiol 170: 533–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittka L, Shmida A, Trolje N, Menzel R (1994) Ultraviolet as a component of flower reflections, and the colour perception of Hymenoptera. Vision Res 34: 1489–1508

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1859) The origin of species. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1876) The effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Free JB (1963) The flower constancy of honeybees. J Anim Ecol 32: 395–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch K von (1953) The dancing bees. Harcourt Brace, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch K von (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant V (1949) Pollination systems as isolating mechanisms in angiosperms. Evolution 3: 82–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant V (1950) The flower constancy of bees. Bot Rev 16: 379–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant V (1994) Modes and origins of mechanical and ethological isolation in angiosperms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1976) The foraging specializations of individual bumblebees. Ecol Monogr 46: 105–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1979) “Majoring” and “minoring” by foraging bumblebees, Bombus vagans: an experimental analysis. Ecology 60: 245–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty TM (1980) The flower visiting behaviour of bumble bees: floral complexity and learning. Can J Zool 58: 1324–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty TM (1994) Costs to foraging bumble bees of switching plant species. Can J Zool 72: 43–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin DA (1970) Reinforcement of reproductive isolation: plants versus animals. Am Nat 104: 571–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis AC (1986) Memory constraints and flower choice in Pieris rapae. Science 232: 863–865

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning A (1956) Some aspects of the foraging behavior of bumblebees. Behavior 9: 164–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. WH Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Straw R (1972) A Markov model for pollinator constancy and competition. Am Nat 106: 597–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD (1981) Field measures of flower constancy in bumblebees. Am Midl Nat 105: 377–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD, Maddison WP, Plowright RC (1982) Behavior of bumble bee pollinators of Aralia hispida Vent. (Araliaceae). Oecologia 54: 326–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Waser NM (1986) Flower constancy: definition, cause, and measurement. Am Nat 127: 593–603

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson P, Thomson JD (1995) How do flowers diverge? In: Lloyd DG, Barrett SCH (eds) Floral biology. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, P., Stine, M. Floral constancy in bumble bees: handling efficiency or perceptual conditioning?. Oecologia 106, 493–499 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00329707

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00329707

Key words

Navigation