Skip to main content

Effects of experience and weather on foraging rate and pollen versus nectar collection in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris

Abstract

This study examines factors that affect foraging rate of free-flying bumblebees, Bombus terrestris, when collecting nectar, and also what factors determine whether they collect pollen or nectar. We show that nectar foraging rate (mass gathered per unit time) is positively correlated with worker size, in accordance with previous studies. It has been suggested that the greater foraging rate of large bees is due to their higher thermoregulatory capacity in cool conditions, but our data suggest that this is not so. Workers differing in size were not differentially affected by the weather. Regardless of size, naïve bees were poor foragers, often using more resources than they gathered. Foraging rate was not maximised until at least 30 trips had been made from the nest. Foraging rates were positively correlated with humidity, perhaps because nectar secretion rates were higher or evaporation of nectar lower at high humidity. Temperature, wind speed and cloud cover did not significantly influence foraging rate, within the summertime range that occurred during the study. Weather greatly influenced whether bees collected pollen or nectar. Pollen was preferably collected when it was warm, windy, and particularly when humidity was low; and preferably during the middle of the day. We suggest that bees collect pollen in dry conditions, and avoid collecting pollen when there is dew or rain-water droplets on the vegetation, which would make grooming pollen into the corbiculae difficult. Availability of sufficient dry days for pollen collection may be an important factor determining the success of bumblebee colonies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Capaldi EA, Dyer FC (1999) The role of orientation flights on homing performance in honeybees. J Exp Biol 202:1655–1666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (1993) GLIM for ecologists. Blackwell, Oxford

  • Cresswell JE (1990) How and why do nectar-foraging bumblebees initiate movements between inflorescences of wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa (Lamiaceae). Oecologia 82:450–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:249–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreisig H (1995) Ideal free distributions of nectar foraging bumblebees. Oikos 72:161–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R, Real, LA (1993a) Learning constraints and floral choice behaviour in bumblebees. Anim Behav 46:637–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R, Real LA (1993b) Effects of recent experience on foraging decisions by bumblebees. Oecologia 94:244–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R, Real LA (1993c) Effects of nectar variance on learning by bumblebees. Anim Behav 45:37–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (1994) A model to predict the role of flower constancy in inter-specific competition between insect pollinated flowers. J Theor Biol 168:309–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (1999) Foraging strategies for gathering nectar and pollen in insects. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 2:185–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (2000a) Are insects flower constant because they use search images to find flowers? Oikos 88:547–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (2000b) Why do pollinators visit proportionally fewer flowers in large patches? Oikos 91:485–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (2003) Bumblebees; their behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Goulson D, Cory JS (1993) Flower constancy and learning in the foraging behaviour of the green-veined white butterfly, Pieris napi. Ecol Entomol 18:315–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC, Hughes WOH (2002) Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris be explained in terms of foraging efficiency? Anim Behav 64:123–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1975) Thermoregulation in bumblebees. II. Energetics of warmup and free flight. J Comp Physiol 96:155–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  • Keasar T, Motro U, Shur Y, Shmida A (1996) Overnight memory retention of foraging skills by bumblebees is imperfect. Anim Behav 52:95–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty TM (1980) Bumble bee foraging: floral complexity and learning. Can J Zool 58:1324–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty TM, Plowright RC (1988) Flower handling by bumblebees—a comparison of specialists and generalists. Anim Behav 36:733–740

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel R (1999) Memory dynamics in the honeybee. J Comp Physiol 185:323–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaethe J, Chittka L (2003) Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. J Exp Biol 206:3447–3453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaethe J, Weidenmuller A (2002) Size variation and foraging rate in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Insect Soc 49:142–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf TJ, Ellington CP, Davis S, Fletham MJ (1996) Validation of the doubly labelled water technique for bumblebees Bombus terrestris (L.). J Exp Biol 199:959–972

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf TJ, Ellington CP, Begley IS (1999) Foraging costs in bumblebees: field conditions cause large individual differences. Insect Soc 46:291–295

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dave Goulson.

Additional information

Communicated by M. Giurfa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peat, J., Goulson, D. Effects of experience and weather on foraging rate and pollen versus nectar collection in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58, 152–156 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-005-0916-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-005-0916-8

Keywords

  • Humidity
  • Size variation
  • Temperature
  • Thermoregulation
  • Wind