Abstract
Factors that determine the relative abundance of bumblebee species remain poorly understood, rendering management of rare and declining species difficult. Studies of bumblebee communities in the Americas suggest that there are strong competitive interactions between species with similar length tongues, and that this competition determines the relative abundance of species. In contrast, in Europe it is common to observe several short-tongued species coexisting with little or no evidence for competition shaping community structure. In this study we examine patterns of abundance and distribution in one of the most diverse bumblebee communities in Europe, found in the mountains of southern Poland. We quantify forage use when collecting nectar and pollen for 23 bumblebee species, and examine patterns of co-occurrence and niche overlap to determine whether there is evidence for inter-specific competition. We also test whether rarity can be explained by diet breadth. Up to 16 species were found coexisting within single sites, with species richness peaking in mountain pasture at ~1,000 m altitude. Results concur with previous studies indicating that the majority of pollen collected by bumblebees is from Fabaceae, but that some bee species (e.g. B. ruderatus) are much more heavily dependent on Fabaceae than others (e.g. B. lucorum). Those species that forage primarily on Fabaceae tended to have long tongues. In common with studies in the UK, diet breadth was correlated with abundance: rarer species tended to visit fewer flower species, after correcting for differences in sample size. No evidence was found for similarity in tongue length or dietary overlap influencing the likelihood of co-occurrence of species. However, the most abundant species (which co-occurred at most sites) occupied distinct dietary niche space. While species with tongues of similar length tended, overall, to have higher dietary niche overlap, among the group of abundant short-tongued species that commonly co-occurred there was marked dietary differentiation which may explain their coexistence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barrow DA, Pickard RS (1984) Size-related selection of food plants by bumblebees. Ecol Entomol 9:369–373. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.1984.tb00832.x
Brian AD (1954) The foraging of bumble bees Part 1. Foraging behaviour. Bee World 35:61–67
Brian AD (1957) Differences in the flowers visited by four species of bumble-bees and their causes. J Anim Ecol 21:223–240. doi:10.2307/1959
Buchmann SL, Nabhan GP (1996) The forgotten pollinators. Island Press, Washington (DC)
Carvell C (2002) Habitat use and conservation of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) under different grassland management regimes. Biol Conserv 103:33–49. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00114-8
Colwell RK, Futuyma DJ (1971) On the measurement of niche breadth and overlap. Ecology 52:567–576. doi:10.2307/1934144
Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs-high diversity of trees and corals is maintained only in a non-equilibrium state. Science 199:1302–1310. doi:10.1126/science.199.4335.1302
Edwards M (1998) U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan Bumblebee Working Group Report 1998. Unpublished report for the UK BAP bumblebee working group, Midhurst, UK
Fitzpatrick U, Murray TE, Paxton RJ, Breen J, Cotton D, Santorum V et al (2007) Rarity and decline in bumblebees-A test of causes and correlates in the Irish fauna. Biol Conserv 136:185–194. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.012
Goulson D (2003a) Bumblebees; their behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 234 pp
Goulson D (2003b) Conserving wild bees for crop pollination. Int J Food Agric Environ 1:142–144
Goulson D, Darvill B (2004) Niche overlap and diet breadth in bumblebees; are rare species more specialized in their choice of flowers? Apidologie (Celle) 35:55–64. doi:10.1051/apido:2003062
Goulson D, Hanley ME (2004) Distribution and forage use of exotic bumblebees in South Island, New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 28:225–232
Goulson D, Stout JC, Hawson SA, Allen JA (1998) Floral display size in comfrey, Symphytum officinale L. (Boraginaceae); relationships with visitation by three bumblebee species and subsequent seed set. Oecologia 113:502–508. doi:10.1007/s004420050402
Goulson D, Hughes WOH, Derwent LC, Stout JC (2002a) Colony growth of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, in improved and conventional agricultural and suburban habitats. Oecologia 130:267–273
Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC et al (2002b) Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris be explained in terms of foraging efficiency? Anim Behav 64:123–130. doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.3041
Goulson D, Hanley ME, Darvill B, Ellis JS, Knight ME (2005) Causes of rarity in bumblebees. Biol Conserv 122:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.017
Goulson D, Hanley ME, Darvill B, Ellis JS (2006) Biotope associations and the decline of bumblebees (Bombus spp.). J Insect Conserv 10:95–103. doi:10.1007/s10841-006-6286-3
Graham L, Jones KN (1996) Resource partitioning and per-flower foraging efficiency in 2 bumble bee species. Am Midl Nat 136:401–406. doi:10.2307/2426743
Harder LD (1985) Morphology as a predictor of flower choice by bumblebees. Ecology 66:198–210. doi:10.2307/1941320
Heinrich B (1976) Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumblebees. Ecology 57:874–889. doi:10.2307/1941054
Hobbs GA, Nummi WO, Virostek JF (1961) Food-gathering behaviour of honey, bumble, and leaf-cutter bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in Alberta. Can Entomol 93:409–419
Hobbs GA, Nummi WO, Virostek JF (1962) Managing colonies of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) for pollination purposes. Can Entomol 94:1121–1132
Holm SN (1966) The utilization and management of bumblebees for red clover and alfalfa seed production. Annu Rev Entomol 11:155–182. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.11.010166.001103
Howard DC, Watkins JW, Clarke RT, Barnett CL, Stark GJ (2003) Estimating the extent and change in broad habitats in Great Britain. J Environ Manage 67:219–227. doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00175-5
Inouye DW (1978) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: experimental studies of foraging behavior. Ecology 59:672–678. doi:10.2307/1938769
Inouye DW (1980) The effects of proboscis and corolla tube lengths on patterns and rates of flower visitation by bumblebees. Oecologia 45:197–201. doi:10.1007/BF00346460
Jennersten O, Berg L, Lehman C (1988) Phenological differences in pollinator visitation, pollen deposition and seed set in the sticky catchfly Viscaria vulgaris. J Ecol 76:1111–1132. doi:10.2307/2260638
Johnson RA (1986) Intraspecific resource partitioning in the bumble bees Bombus ternarius and B. pensylvanicus. Ecology 67:133–138. doi:10.2307/1938511
Kells AR, Holland J, Goulson D (2001) The value of uncropped field margins for foraging bumblebees. J Insect Conserv 5:283–291. doi:10.1023/A:1013307822575
Kosior A (1995) Changes in the fauna of bumble-bees (Bombus Latr.) and cuckoo-bees (Psithyrus Lep.) of selected regions in southern Poland. In: Banaszak J (ed) Changes in fauna of wild bees in Europe. Pedagogical University, Bydgoszcz, pp 103–111
Kosior A, Celary W, Olejnikzak P, Fijal J, Krol W, Solarz W et al (2007) The decline of the bumble bees and cuckoo bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombini) of Western and Central Europe. Oryx 41:79–88. doi:10.1017/S0030605307001597
Liedloff A (1999) Mantel nonparametric test calculator (version 2.0). Available from http://www.sci.qut.edu.au/NRS/Mantel.htm
Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its management. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Manly BFJ (1986) Randomization and regression methods for testing for associations with geographical, environmental and biological distances between populations. Res Popul Ecol (Kyoto) 28:201–218. doi:10.1007/BF02515450
Osborne JL, Corbet SA (1994) Managing habitats for pollinators in farmland. Asp Appl Biol 40:207–215
Peat J, Goulson D (2005) Effects of experience and weather on foraging efficiency and pollen versus nectar collection in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:152–156. doi:10.1007/s00265-005-0916-8
Peat J, Tucker J, Goulson D (2005) Does intraspecific size variation in bumblebees allow colonies to efficiently exploit diverse floral resources? Ecol Entomol 30:176–181. doi:10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00676.x
Prys-Jones OE (1982) Ecological studies of foraging and life history in bumblebees. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, UK
Prys-Jones OE, Corbet SA (1991) Bumblebees. Richmond Publishing Company, Slough
Pyke GH (1982) Local geographic distributions of bumblebees near Crested Butte, Colorado: competition and community structure. Ecology 63:555–573. doi:10.2307/1938970
Ranta E (1982) Species structure of North European bumblebee communities. Oikos 38:202–209. doi:10.2307/3544020
Ranta E (1983) Proboscis length and the coexistence of bumblebee species. Oikos 43:189–196. doi:10.2307/3544768
Ranta E, Lundberg H (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: the significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35:298–302. doi:10.2307/3544643
Ranta E, Lundberg H, Teräs I (1981) Patterns of resource utilization in two Fennoscandian bumblebee communities. Oikos 36:1–11. doi:10.2307/3544371
Ranta E, Tiainen M (1982) Structure in seven bumblebee communities in eastern Finland in relation to resource availability. Holarct Ecol 5:48–54
Ranta E, Vepsäläinen K (1981) Why are there so many species? Spatio-temporal heterogeneity and northern bumblebee communities. Oikos 36:28–34. doi:10.2307/3544375
Rasmont P (1988) Monographie écologique et zoogéographique des bourdons de France et de Belgique (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombinae). Ph.D. thesis, Faculté des Sciences Agronomique de l’Etat, Gembloux, Belgium
Rasmont P (1995) How to restore the apoid diversity in Belgium and France? Wrong and right ways, or the end of protection paradigm!. In: Banaszak J (ed) Changes in fauna of wild bees in Europe. Pedagogical University, Bydgoszcz, pp 53–64
Simpson GH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. doi:10.1038/163688a0
Tepedino VJ, Stanton NL (1981) Diversity and competition in bee-plant communities on short-grass prairie. Oikos 36:35–44. doi:10.2307/3544376
Teräs I (1976) Flower visits of bumblebees, Bombus Latr. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) during one summer. Ann Zool Fenn 13:200–232
Teräs I (1985) Food plants and flower visits of bumble-bees (Bombus: Hymenoptera, Apidae) in southern Finland. Acta Zool Fenn 179:1–120
Westrich P (1996) Habitat requirements of central European 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 Press, London, pp 2–16
Westrich P, Schwenninger H-R, Dathe H, Riemann H, Saure C, Voith J et al (1998) Rote Liste der Bienen (Hymenoptera: Apidae). In: Rote Liste Gefährdeter Tiere Deutschlands. Ed. By Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Naturschutz 55, Bonn, Schriftenr. Landschaftspf, pp 119–129
Williams PH (1982) The distribution and decline of British bumble bees (Bombus Latr). J Apic Res 21:236–245
Williams PH (1985a) A preliminary cladistic investigation of relationships among the bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Syst Entomol 10:239–255. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3113.1985.tb00529.x
Williams PH (1985b) On the distribution of bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae), with particular regard to patterns within the British Isles. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK, 180pp
Williams PH (1986) Environmental change and the distribution of British bumble bees (Bombus Latr.). Bee World 67:50–61
Williams PH (1988) Habitat use by bumble bees (Bombus spp.). Ecol Entomol 13:223–237. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.1988.tb00350.x
Williams PH (1989) Why are there so many species of bumble bees at Dungeness? Bot J Linn Soc 101:31–44. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.1989.tb00134.x
Williams PH (1991) The bumble bees of the Kashmir Himalaya (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bull Br Mus (Natural History) 60:1–204
Williams PH (2005) Does specialization explain rarity and decline among British bumblebees? A response to Goulson et al. Biol Conserv 122:33–43. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.019
Williams PH, Araujo MB, Rasmont P (2007) Can vulnerability among British bumblebee (Bombus) species be explained by niche position and breadth? Biol Conserv 138:493–505. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.001
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by a grant from the British Ecological Society. Ben Darvill is funded by the Leverhulme Trust, and Gillian Lye by a NERC studentship. Thanks are due to Dr Paul Williams for comments on the MS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Sample site locations and summaries of bee abundance data per site
Site | Location | Altitude | Total bees | Richness | Simpson’s 1/D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 49:28:09N, 20:13:19E | 580 | 57 | 10 | 7.785366 |
2 | 49:29:08N, 20:10:26E | 630 | 47 | 8 | 3.846975 |
3 | 49:31:36N, 20:20:44E | 450 | 79 | 10 | 1.669014 |
4 | 49:32:40N, 20:14:01E | 740 | 73 | 9 | 3.102715 |
5 | 49:32:56N, 20:12:43E | 1,000 | 110 | 7 | 3.816041 |
6 | 49:33:28N, 20:15:25E | 1,130 | 62 | 9 | 5.818462 |
7 | 49:32:44N, 20:15:02E | 950 | 111 | 7 | 3.80137 |
8 | 49:31:00N, 20:17:25E | 550 | 55 | 11 | 5.265957 |
9 | 49:33:35N, 20:18:23E | 660 | 57 | 7 | 3.960298 |
10 | 49:30:57N, 20:24:42E | 400 | 107 | 10 | 2.12238 |
11 | 49:33:09N, 20:26:51E | 370 | 21 | 6 | 4.468085 |
12 | 49:28:55N, 20:24:18E | 450 | 58 | 7 | 3.458159 |
13 | 49:26:51N, 20:26:09E | 500 | 5 | 2 | 1.666667 |
14 | 49:34:11N, 20:20:24E | 500 | 61 | 9 | 4.80315 |
15 | 49:36:21N, 20:22:52E | 650 | 62 | 9 | 3.199662 |
16 | 49:25:56N, 20:29:11E | 550 | 51 | 10 | 1.883309 |
17 | 49:19:45N, 20:06:22E | 1,000 | 72 | 10 | 7.495601 |
18 | 49:20:49N, 20:08:07E | 754 | 58 | 6 | 2.434462 |
19 | 49:20:45N, 20:11:10E | 973 | 80 | 8 | 4.501425 |
20 | 49:22:28N, 20:10:54E | 738 | 53 | 9 | 4.671186 |
21 | 96:19:33N, 20:01:47E | 786 | 68 | 12 | 8.968504 |
22 | 49:17:51N, 20:02:17E | 970 | 88 | 16 | 6.645833 |
23 | 49:18:23N, 20:00:28E | 895 | 87 | 10 | 5.746544 |
24 | 49:17:03N, 19:55:17E | 883 | 84 | 11 | 6.958084 |
25 | 49:18:41N, 19:49:57E | 848 | 94 | 12 | 5.070766 |
26 | 49:20:06N, 19:50:54E | 840 | 73 | 12 | 6.636364 |
27 | 49:15:22N, 20:00:08E | 1,520 | 40 | 6 | 4.875 |
28 | 49:14:28N, 20:00:08E | 1,580 | 29 | 6 | 4.185567 |
29 | 49:14:04N, 19:58:31E | 1,940 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
30 | 49:15:08N, 19:58:17E | 1,400 | 12 | 4 | 3.882353 |
31 | 49:16:03N, 19:58:42E | 1,100 | 24 | 8 | 7.885714 |
32 | 49:30:15N, 20:11:09E | 830 | 121 | 9 | 3.787167 |
Appendix 2
Total numbers of visits by each bee species to different plant species
Campestris | Hortorum | Humilis | Hypnorum | Lapidarius | Lucorum | Pascuorum | Pratorum | Pyrenaeus | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♂ | |
Trifolium pratense | 81 | 3 | 7 | 29 | 4 | 167 | 14 | 2 | 1 | |||||
Epilobium angustifolium | 1 | 1 | 10 | 17 | 9 | 30 | 49 | 22 | 2 | 29 | 53 | 38 | ||
Centaurea nigra | 6 | 6 | 1 | 39 | 18 | 10 | 21 | 15 | ||||||
Impatiens glandulifera | 1 | 25 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 24 | 1 | |||||||
Galeopsis tetrahit | 15 | 1 | 50 | 2 | ||||||||||
Trifolium repens | 1 | 11 | 3 | 9 | 22 | 2 | 1 | |||||||
Symphytum officinale | 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 2 | ||||||||
Mentha spicata | 1 | 2 | 10 | 27 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Knautia arvensis | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 5 | |||||
Trifolium medium | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 19 | 10 | ||||||||
Carduus crispus | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 6 | ||||
Cirsium arvense | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 2 | ||||||
Lathyrus pratensis | 9 | 2 | 13 | |||||||||||
Stachys sylvatica | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 19 | 3 | ||||||||
Rbus fruticosus agg. | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | ||||||||
Origanum vulgare | 4 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Other | 14 | 2 | 1 | 29 | 22 | 34 | 56 | 20 | 6 | 4 | 6 | |||
Ruderarius | Ruderatus | Soroeensis | Sylvarum | Terrestris | Veteranus | Wurflenii | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♀ | ♂ | ||
Trifolium pratense | 8 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 16 | 2 | 9 | 17 | 2 | 389 | ||
Epilobium angustifolium | 1 | 47 | 21 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 347 | ||||
Centaurea nigra | 1 | 4 | 85 | 42 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 272 | |||
Impatiens glandulifera | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 85 | ||||||||
Galeopsis tetrahit | 1 | 2 | 1 | 72 | |||||||||
Trifolium repens | 3 | 2 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 70 | ||||||
Symphytum officinale | 1 | 4 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 52 | |||||
Mentha spicata | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 51 | ||||||||
Knautia arvensis | 16 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 51 | ||||||||
Trifolium medium | 2 | 3 | 2 | 49 | |||||||||
Carduus crispus | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 46 | |||||||
Cirsium arvense | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 39 | ||||||||
Lathyrus pratensis | 2 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 39 | ||||||||
Stachys sylvatica | 3 | 1 | 34 | ||||||||||
Rbus fruticosus agg. | 9 | 2 | 1 | 30 | |||||||||
Origanum vulgare | 1 | 1 | 29 | ||||||||||
Other | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 14 | 4 | 291 | ||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goulson, D., Lye, G.C. & Darvill, B. Diet breadth, coexistence and rarity in bumblebees. Biodivers Conserv 17, 3269–3288 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9428-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9428-y