Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The relationship between preference and switching in flower foraging by bees

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It seems self-evident that generalist foragers switch more between resources than specialists but despite diverse ecological and evolutionary implications, how variation in switching relates to variation in preference warrants additional study. Here we tested predictions based on a simple probability model, using flower-foraging bees as a model system. In laboratory assays, we presented bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) workers with flowers of two species, Tecoma stans and T. alata, from which they could collect nectar and/or pollen. We quantified landing preference and occurrence of switching between species in successive visits. Bees varied greatly in floral preference. Almost half showed statistically significant preferences for one or the other species, while the rest were generalists in preference. As expected, generalists using both flower species switched more in successive visits than bees that were more specialized, a pattern fit to a quadratic function. However, generalist individuals switched more than expected based on null expectation. A Modified Jacob’s Index (MJI) of switching was significantly positively correlated with degree of preference: generalist bees had more negative MJI’s than specialist bees, indicating that even after the expected statistical effect of preference on switching was accounted for, they switched more than specialists. A simulation ruled out the possibility that the pattern was due to bias in MJI. Generalist-specialist differences in which food was collected (nectar versus pollen) were also ruled out. We offer possible explanations for our observed pattern and advocate consideration of preference and switching throughout behavioral ecology.

Significance statement

Behavioral preference is the subject of a large literature in areas such as foraging, mating and communication. However, a preference measure alone does not necessarily tell us if choices for one alternative are made in runs or intermingled with choices for another alternative. The distinction between preference and the sequential pattern of choices is relevant in many contexts in behavioral ecology but has been a particular focus of study in flower foraging by pollinators. Even in that literature, the relationship between preference and sequential pattern in switching warrants further examination. In our study, bees were shown to vary in preference for flowers of two species. Some were generalists; some were specialists on one or the other species. Generalist bees switched more than specialist bees, even after controlling for statistical effects of preference on switching frequency. The report of this generalist-specialist pattern in switching may be novel and has far-reaching implications throughout the field of behavioral ecology.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science repository, https://osf.io/hujen/?view_only=6c97b6ba01cb48c2b04c39972261fc18.

References

  • Abbott KR, Dukas R (2016) Substrate choice by ovipositing mothers and consequent hatchling behaviour: the exploration sharing hypothesis. Anim Behav 121:53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (2006) The effects of switching behavior on the evolutionary diversification of generalist consumers. Am Nat 168:645–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arceo-Gómez G, Ashman TL (2011) Heterospecific pollen deposition: does diversity alter the consequences? New Phytol 192:738–746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arganda S, Pérez-Escudero A, de Polavieja GG (2012) A common rule for decision making in animal collectives across species. Proc Nat Acad Sci 109:20508–20513

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett AW (1883) On the constancy of insects in their visits to flowers. J Linn Soc Lond Zool 17:175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernays EA (1988) Host specificity in phytophagous insects: selection pressure from generalist predators. Entomol Exp Appl 49:131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernays EA (1989) Host range in phytophagous insects: the potential role of generalist predators. Evol Ecol 3:299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernays E, Graham M (1988) On the evolution of host specificity in phytophagous arthropods. Ecol 69:886–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruninga-Socolar B, Socolar JB, Konzmann S, Lunau K (2023) Pollinator‐mediated plant coexistence requires high levels of pollinator specialization. Ecol Evol 13:e10349

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Buatois A, Mailly J, Dubois T, Lihoreau M (2024) A comparative analysis of foraging route development by bumblebees and honey bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 78:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchmann SL (1985) Bees use vibration to aid pollen collection from non-poricidal flowers. J Kan Entomol Soc 58:517–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesson J (1978) Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecol 59:211–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chittka L, Thomson JD, Waser NM (1999) Flower constancy insect psychology and plant evolution. Naturwiss 86:361–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Christy RM (1883) On the methodic habits of insects when visiting flowers. Zool J Linn Soc 17:186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 100:611–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fathipour Y, Maleknia B, Bagheri A, Soufbaf M, Reddy GV (2020) Functional and numerical responses mutual interference and resource switching of Amblyseius swirskii on two-spotted spider mite. Biol Contl 146:104266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finnell LM, Koski MH (2021) A test of sensory drive in plant–pollinator interactions: heterogeneity in the signalling environment shapes pollinator preference for a floral visual signal. New Phytol 232:1436–1448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forster CY, Middleton EJT, Gloag R, Hochuli DF, White TE, Latty T (2023) Impact of empty flowers on foraging choice and movement within floral patches by the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Ins Soc 70:413–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gegear RJ, Laverty TM (2001) The effect of variation among floral traits on the flower constancy of pollinators. In: Chittka L, Thomson JD (eds) Cognitive ecology of pollination. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegear RJ, Laverty TM (2005) Flower constancy in bumblebees: a test of the trait variability hypothesis. Anim Behav 69:939–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gegear RJ, Thomson JD (2004) Does the flower constancy of bumble bees reflect foraging economics? Ethol 110:793–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter C, Ratnieks FL (2011) Flower constancy in insect pollinators: adaptive foraging behaviour or cognitive limitation? Comm Int Biol 4:633–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverkamp A, Hansson BS, Baldwin IT, Knaden M, Yon F (2018) Floral trait variations among wild tobacco populations influence the foraging behavior of hawkmoth pollinators. Fron Ecol Evol 6:19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker OE, Van Leeuwen TE, Adams CE (2017) The physiological costs of prey switching reinforce foraging specialization. J Anim Ecol 86:605–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins R (2022) Predicting how pollinator behavior causes reproductive isolation. Ecol Evol 12:e8847

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins R, Rausher MD (2012) Pollinator-mediated selection on flower color allele drives reinforcement. Science 335:1090–1092

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ishii HS, Masuda H (2014) Effect of flower visual angle on flower constancy: a test of the search image hypothesis. Beh Ecol 25:933–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs J (1974) Quantitative measurement of food selection: a modification of the forage ratio and Ivlev’s electivity index. Oecol 14:413–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janovský Z, Smyčka J, Smyčková M, Herben T (2017) Pollinator preferences and flower constancy: is it adaptive for plants to manipulate them? Biol J Linn Soc 121:475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein S, Pasquaretta C, Barron AB, Devaud J-M, Lihoreau M (2017) Inter-individual variability in the foraging behaviour of traplining bumblebees. Sci Rep 7:4561

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR (1973) Behavioral aspects of predation. Persp Ethol 73–111

  • Lanterman Novotny J, Lybbert A, Reeher P, Mitchell RJ, Goodell K (2023) Bumble bee banquet: Genus-and species‐level floral selection by Midwestern Bombus. Ecosph 14:e4425

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Lewis AC (1989) Flower visit consistency in Pieris rapae the cabbage butterfly. J Anim Ecol 58:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lihoreau M, Raine NE, Reynolds AM, Stelzer RJ, Lim KS, Smith AD, Osborne JL, Chittka L (2013) Unravelling the mechanisms of trapline foraging in bees. Comm Integr Biol 6:e1001392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly BFJ (1972) Tables for the analysis of selective predation experiments. Pop Ecol 14:74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly BF, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2007) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Springer Science & Business Media

  • Meerow AW, Ayala-Silva T (2008) Miami Sunrise’, ‘Miami Sunset’, and ‘Tangelo’: three cultivars of Tecoma guarume. Hortsci 43:546–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelot T, Blackwell PG, Matthiopoulos J (2019) Linking resource selection and step selection models for habitat preferences in animals. Ecol 100:e02452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnaar C, Anderson B, de Jager ML, Karron JD (2019) Plant–pollinator interactions along the pathway to paternity. Ann Bot 123:225–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch WW (1969) Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol Mon 39:335–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohashi K, Thomson JD (2009) Trapline foraging by pollinators: its ontogeny, economics and possible consequences for plants. Ann Bot 103:1365–1378

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pelton J (1964) A survey of the ecology of Tecoma stans. Butl Univ Bot Stud 53–88

  • Raubenheimer D, Simpson SJ (2018) Nutritional ecology and foraging theory. Curr Opin Ins Sci 27:38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raubenheimer D, Simpson SJ, Mayntz D (2009) Nutrition ecology and nutritional ecology: toward an integrated framework. Func Ecol 23:4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds AM, Lihoreau M, Chittka L (2013) A simple iterative model accurately captures complex trapline formation by bumblebees across spatial scales and flower arrangements. PLoS Comp Biol 9:e1002938

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Russell AL, Papaj DR (2016) Artificial pollen dispensing flowers and feeders for bee behaviour experiments. J Poll Ecol 18:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiestl FP, Johnson SD (2013) Pollinator-mediated evolution of floral signals. Trends Ecol Evol 28:307–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy WA, Soha J, Peters S, Nowicki S (2022) Long-distance dependencies in birdsong syntax. Proc Roy Soc B 289:20212473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithson A, Gigord LD (2003) The evolution of empty flowers revisited. Amer Nat 161:537–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somme L, Vanderplanck M, Michez D, Lombaerde I, Moerman R, Wathelet B, Wattiez R, Lognay G, Jacquemart AL (2015) Pollen and nectar quality drive the major and minor floral choices of bumble bees. Apidol 46:92–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Takimoto G, Kagawa K, Satow T, Sakamoto T (2022) Increased floral rewards due to local adaptation drives plant ecological speciation via learned preferences of pollinators. Am Nat 200:834–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tenhumberg B, Dellinger AS, Smith SD (2023) Modelling pollinator and nonpollinator selection on flower colour variation. J Ecol 111:746–760

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD, Peterson SC, Harder LD (1987) Response of traplining bumble bees to competition experiments: shifts in feeding location and efficiency. Oecol 71:295–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD, Slatkin M, Thomson BA (1997) Trapline foraging by bumble bees: II. Definition and detection from sequence data. Behav Ecol 8:199–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD, Fung HF, Ogilvie JE (2019) Effects of spatial patterning of co-flowering plant species on pollination quantity and purity. Ann Bot 123:303–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waser NM (1983) The adaptive nature of floral traits: ideas and evidence. Poll Biol 1:241–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A discussion group at the University of Arizona encouraged us to think more about the topic of preference and switching; we thank group members Heather Briggs, Carla Essenberg, Sarah Richman, and Gordon Smith. Alec Olivas provided able assistance in colony care and bee observations. Minjung Baek and Jacob Francis are also thanked for discussions. Robin Hopkins is gratefully acknowledged for sharing insights on variation in preference and switching. Comments from two reviewers are recognized with appreciation. We dedicate this paper to the memory of Dr. Elizabeth Bernays, whose career-long insights on herbivore preference and switching were invaluable in developing the ideas presented here.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, 1041 E. Lowell Street, Tucson, AZ, 85721, U.S.A.

    Daniel R. Papaj

  2. Department of Biology, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, 65897, U.S.A.

    Avery L. Russell

Authors
  1. Daniel R. Papaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Avery L. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R. Papaj.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Communicated by D. Naug.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papaj, D.R., Russell, A.L. The relationship between preference and switching in flower foraging by bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 78, 40 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03456-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03456-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation