Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 11, pp 3179–3191 | Cite as

Non-native plants affect generalist pollinator diet overlap and foraging behavior indirectly, via impacts on native plant abundance

  • Sandra GillespieEmail author
  • Elizabeth Elle
Original Paper


Flowering invasive plants can have dramatic effects on the resource landscape available to pollinators. Because many pollinators exhibit behavioral plasticity in response to competitor or resource density, this in turn can result in impacts on ecological processes such as pollination and plant reproduction. We examine how interactions between five common generalist eusocial bees change across an invasion gradient by examining how bee abundance and diet overlap changed with variation in both invasive plant abundance and competitor abundance in a temperate oak-savannah ecosystem. Specifically we focus on the bumblebees Bombus bifarius, B. mixtus, B. melanopygus and B. vosnesenskii, as well as the non-native honeybee Apis mellifera, and their interactions with the native flowering plants Camassia quamash, Camassia liechtlinii, and the invasive shrub Cytisus scoparius. We further examine whether changes in pollinator visits to the invasive and two common native plants can explain changes in diet overlap. Abundance of the invasive plant and other common floral resources had strong impacts on focal bee abundance, with certain species more likely to be present at highly invaded sites. This may be because highly invaded sites tended to be embedded in forested landscapes where those bees are common. Diet overlap was most affected by abundance of a common native plant, rather than the invasive plant, with diet overlap increasing non-linearly with abundance of the native plant. Furthermore, Apis mellifera, did not appear to have direct competitive effects on native bumblebees in this habitat. However, visit patterns suggest that bees most abundant at highly invaded sites may compete for access to native resources. Thus the impacts of this invasive plant on our focal bee species may be primarily indirect, via its’ competitive effects on native plants.


Behavioral plasticity Competition Invasive Bombus Pollination 



We are grateful to Julie Wray, Lindsey Button, Ranah Chavoshi, Jessica Bayley, Severin Vallaincourt and Tiia Haapalainen for field assistance; the cities of Oak Bay, Victoria, and Esquimalt, the District of Saanich, the Capital Regional District, and the National Research Council of Canada for site access; and Simon Fraser University and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada for funding (Discovery Grant to E.E. and Undergraduate Student Research Award to J.B.).

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1767_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)


  1. Albrecht M, Ramis MR, Traveset A (2016) Pollinator-mediated impacts of alien invasive plants on the pollination of native plants: the role of spatial scale and distinct behaviour among pollinator guilds. Biol Invasions 18:1801–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM et al (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bezemer TM, Harvey JA, Cronin JT (2014) Response of native insect communities to invasive plants. In: Berenbaum MR (ed) Annual review of entomology, vol 59. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, p 119-U740Google Scholar
  4. Brosi BJ, Briggs HM (2013) Single pollinator species losses reduce floral fidelity and plant reproductive function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:13044–13048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown BJ, Mitchell RJ, Graham SA (2002) Competition for pollination between an invasive species (purple loosestrife) and a native congener. Ecology 83:2328–2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartar RV (2009) Resource-tracking by bumble bees: What explains local responses to density of bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) flowers? Ecoscience 16:470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dohzono I, Yokoyama J (2010) Impacts of alien bees on native plant-pollinator relationships: a review with special emphasis on plant reproduction. Appl Entomol Zool 45:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldman TS, Morris WF, Wilson WG (2004) When can two plant species facilitate each other’s pollination? Oikos 105:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fox J, Hong J (2009) Effect displays in R for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models: extensions to the effects package. J Stat Softw 32:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox J, Weisber S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson MR, Richardson DM, Pauw A (2012) Can floral traits predict an invasive plant’s impact on native plant-pollinator communities? J Ecol 100:1216–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillespie SD, Bayley J, Elle E (2017) Native bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollinators vary in floral resource use across an invasion gradient. Can Entomol 149:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harmon-Threatt AN, Kremen C (2015) Bumble bees selectively use native and exotic species to maintain nutritional intake across highly variable and invaded local floral resource pools. Ecol Entomol 40:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heinrich B (1976a) Foraging specializations of individual bumble-bees. Ecol Monogr 46:105–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heinrich B (1976b) Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects—bumblebees. Ecology 57:874–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herron-Sweet CR, Lehnhoff EA, Burkle LA et al (2016) Temporal- and density-dependent impacts of an invasive plant on pollinators and pollination services to a native plant. Ecosphere 7:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt RD (1987) On the relationship between niche overlap and competition—the effect of incommensurable niche dimensions. Oikos 48:110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jauni M, Ramula S (2015) Meta-analysis on the effects of exotic plants on the fitness of native plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 17:412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knuth P (1906) Handbook of flower pollination based on Hermann Mueller’s ‘The fertilisation of flowers by insects’. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers IncGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindstrom SAM, Herbertsson L, Rundlof M et al (2016) Experimental evidence that honeybees depress wild insect densities in a flowering crop. Proc R Soc B Biol, Sci, p 283Google Scholar
  22. MacArthur RH, Pianaka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCary MA, Mores R, Farfan MA et al (2016) Invasive plants have different effects on trophic structure of green and brown food webs in terrestrial ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 19:328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muth F, Keasar T, Dornhaus A (2015) Trading off short-term costs for long-term gains: how do bumblebees decide to learn morphologically complex flowers? Anim Behav 101:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker IM (1997) Pollinator limitation of Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), an invasive exotic shrub. Ecology 78:1457–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pysek P, Jarosik V, Hulme PE et al (2012) A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Glob Change Biol 18:1725–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. R-Development-Core-Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  28. Ranta E, Lundberg H (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees—the significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35:298–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robertson AW, Mountjoy C, Faulkner BE et al (1999) Bumble bee selection of Mimulus guttatus flowers: the effects of pollen quality and reward depletion. Ecology 80:2594–2606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shaben J, Myers JH (2010) Relationships between Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), soil nutrients, and plant diversity in the Garry oak savannah ecosystem. Plant Ecol 207:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith EP, Zaret TM (1982) Bias in estimating niche overlap. Ecology 63:1248–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stout JC, Morales CL (2009) Ecological impacts of invasive alien species on bees. Apidologie 40:388–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Traveset A, Richardson DM (2014) Mutualistic interactions and biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:89–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wray JC, Neame LA, Elle E (2014) Floral resources, body size, and surrounding landscape influence bee community assemblages in oak-savannah fragments. Ecol Entomol 39:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Smith GM (2007) Analysing ecological data. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the Fraser ValleyAbbotsfordCanada
  2. 2.Evolutionary and Behavioural Ecology Research Group, Department of Biological SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations