Skip to main content

Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size

Oecologia volume 153, pages 589–596 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Bees are the most important pollinator taxon; therefore, understanding the scale at which they forage has important ecological implications and conservation applications. The foraging ranges for most bee species are unknown. Foraging distance information is critical for understanding the scale at which bee populations respond to the landscape, assessing the role of bee pollinators in affecting plant population structure, planning conservation strategies for plants, and designing bee habitat refugia that maintain pollination function for wild and crop plants. We used data from 96 records of 62 bee species to determine whether body size predicts foraging distance. We regressed maximum and typical foraging distances on body size and found highly significant and explanatory nonlinear relationships. We used a second data set to: (1) compare observed reports of foraging distance to the distances predicted by our regression equations and (2) assess the biases inherent to the different techniques that have been used to assess foraging distance. The equations we present can be used to predict foraging distances for many bee species, based on a simple measurement of body size.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1a–b
Fig. 2a–b

References

  • Axelrod DI (1960) The evolution of flowering plants. In: Tax S (ed) Evolution after Darwin: the evolution of life, vol 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

  • Bacon OG, Burton VE, McSwain JW, Marble VL, Stanger W, Thorp RW (1965) Pollinating alfalfa with leaf-cutting bees (AXT 160). University of California Agricultural Extension Service, Berkeley, CA

  • Bawa KS (1990) Plant–pollinator interactions in tropical rain forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:299–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekman M, Ratnieks FLW (2000) Long-range foraging by the honey-bee, Apis mellifera L. Funct Ecol 14:490–496

  • Campbell DR (1985) Pollen and gene dispersal—the influences of competition for pollination. Evolution 39:418–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane JH (1987) Estimation of bee size using intertegular span (Apoidea). J Kans Entomol Soc 60:145–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Collett TS (1996) Insect navigation en route to the goal: multiple strategies for the use of landmarks. J Exp Biol 199:227–235

    PubMed  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham SA (2000) Depressed pollination in habitat fragments causes low fruit set. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1149–1152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darvill BM, Knight E, Goulson D (2004) Use of genetic markers to quantify bumblebee foraging range and nest density. Oikos 107:471–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick CW (2001) Genetic rescue of remnant tropical trees by an alien pollinator. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2391–2396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer FC, Seeley TD (1991) Dance dialects and foraging range in three Asian honey bee species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:227–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabre JH (1914) The mason bees. Dodd, Mead and Co., New York

  • Gary NE, Witherell PC, Marston J (1972) Foraging range and distribution of honey bees used for carrot and onion pollination. Environ Entomol 1:71–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Gathmann A, Tscharntke T (2002) Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 71:757–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf SS, Kremen C (2006) Wild bee species increase tomato production and respond differently to surrounding land use in Northern California. Biol Conserv 133:81–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf SS, Kremen C (2006b) Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:13890–13895

    Google Scholar 

  • Harestad AS, Bunnell FL (1979) Home range and body-weight—re-evaluation. Ecology 60:389–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JF, Roberts SP (2000) Flight respiration and energetics. Annu Rev Physiol 62:179–205

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haskell JP, Ritchie ME, Olff H (2002) Fractal geometry predicts varying body size scaling relationships for mammal and bird home ranges. Nature 418:527–530

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1992) Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecol Monogr 62:447–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins SH (1981) Common patterns in home range—body size relationships of birds and mammals. Am Nat 118:126–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetz W, Carbone C, Fulford J, Brown JH (2004) The scaling of animal space use. Science 306:266–268

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Judd GJR, Borden JH (1989) Distant olfactory response of the onion fly, Delia antiqua, to host-plant odor in the field. Physiol Entomol 14(4):429–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapyla M (1978) Foraging distance of a small solitary bee, Chelostoma maxillosum (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Ann Entomologici Fenn 35:63–64

  • Kelt DA, Van Vuren DH (2001) The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am Nat 157:637–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein AM, Vaissière B, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of crop pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 274:303–313

  • Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Fruit set of highland coffee increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 270:955–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Pollination of Coffea canephora in relation to local and regional agroforestry management. J Appl Ecol 40:837–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight ME, Martin AP, Bishop S, Osborne JL, Hale RJ, Sanderson A, Goulson D (2005) An interspecific comparison of foraging range and nest density of four bumblebee (Bombus) species. Mol Ecol 14:1811–1820

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:16812–16816

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL, Fay JP, Thorp RW (2004) The area requirements of an ecosystem service, crop pollination. Ecol Lett 7:1109–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennartsson T (2002) Extinction thresholds and disrupted plant-pollinator interactions in fragmented plant populations. Ecology 83:3060–3072

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor SE (1976) Insect pollination of cultivated crop plants. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Makarieva AM, Gorshkov VG, Li B (2005) Why do population density and inverse home range scale differently with body size? Implications for ecosystem stability. Ecol Complexity 2:259–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNab BK (1963) Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am Nat 97:133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michener CD (1974) The social behavior of the bees, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Milton K, May ML (1976) Body-weight, diet and home range area in primates. Nature 259:459–462

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Murlis J, Elkinton JS, Carde RT (1992) Odor plumes and how insects use them. Annu Rev Entomol 37:505–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne JL, Clark SJ, Morris RJ (1999) A landscape-scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. J Appl Ecol 36:519–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer JS (1970) The flight and foraging behavior of the alkali bee (Nomia melanderi) and the alfalfa leaf-cutter bee (Megachile rotundata). Utah State University, Logan, UT, p 119

  • Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rau P (1929) Experimental studies in the homing of carpenter and mining bees. J Comp Psychol 9:35–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2004) Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops. Conserv Biol 18:1262–1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME, Olff H (1999) Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400:557–560

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson DR (1966) Observations on the alfalfa leaf-cutter bee Megachile rotundata at Hodgson, Manitoba in 1966. Proc Entomol Soc Manit 22:34–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Roland J, Taylor PD (1997) Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386:710–713

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rossel S (1993) Navigation by bees using polarized skylight. Comp Biochem Physiol A 104(4):695–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1968) Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49:123–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schone H, Kuhme WD (2001) Searching and homing times of displaced honeybees as affected by experience and celestial cues (Hymenoptera : Apidae). Entomol Generalis 25(3):171–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1997) Biometry, 3rd edn. WH Freeman, New York

  • Southwick EE, Buchmann SL (1995) Effects of horizon landmarks on homing success in honey-bees. Am Nat 146(5):748–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Kuhn A (2003) Honeybee foraging in differentially structured landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 270:569–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner FB, Jennrich RI, Weintrau JD (1969) Home ranges and body size of lizards. Ecology 50:1076–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Nieuwstadt MGL, Iraheta CER (1996) Relation between size and foraging range in stingless bees (Apidae, Meliponinae). Apidologie 27:219–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R (2000) Foraging distances of Bombus muscorum, Bombus lapidarius, and Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera, Apidae). J Insect Behav 13:239–246

  • Waser NM, Chittka L, Price MV, Williams NM, Ollerton J (1996) Generalization in pollination systems and why it matters. Ecology 77:1043–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2006) Bumblebees experience landscapes at different spatial scales: possible implications for coexistence. Community Ecol 149:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Westrich P (1996) Considering the ecological needs of our native 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, London

Download references

Acknowledgments

John Ascher provided updates to bee species names. B. Danforth provided comments on the manuscript. T. Good translated selected research papers from German to English. C O’Toole provided unpublished data. We measured IT span on specimens provided by the American Museum of Natural History (New York, NY), the Bohart Museum of the University of California (Davis, CA), the USDA Bee Biology and Systematics lab (Logan, UT) and the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, DC). Funding was provided by an Environmental Protection Agency Science to Achieve Results Fellowship to SSG, a David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellowship to NMW, a postdoctoral fellowship from the Princeton Council on Science and Technology to RW, a McDonnell 21st Century Research Award to CK, and the Princeton University Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Sarah S. Greenleaf

  2. Department of Biology, Bryn Mawr College, 101 N. Merion Ave, Bryn Mawr, PA, 19010, USA

    Neal M. Williams

  3. Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, 137 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA

    Rachael Winfree & Claire Kremen

Authors
  1. Sarah S. Greenleaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neal M. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachael Winfree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claire Kremen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah S. Greenleaf.

Additional information

Communicated by Richard Karban.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(DOC 239 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenleaf, S.S., Williams, N.M., Winfree, R. et al. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9

Keywords

  • Body size
  • Foraging distance
  • Apoidea
  • Bee
  • Pollination