Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Honey bees and bumble bees respond differently to inter- and intra-specific encounters

  • Original article
  • Published:
Apidologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiple bee species may forage simultaneously at a common resource. Physical encounters among these bees may modify their subsequent foraging behavior and shape pollinator distribution and resource utilization in a plant community. We observed physical encounters between honey bees, Apis mellifera, and bumble bees, Bombus impatiens, visiting artificial plants in a controlled foraging arena. Both species were more likely to leave the plant following an encounter with another bee, but differed in their responses to intra- and inter-specific encounters. A. mellifera responded similarly to an encounter with either species. However, most B. impatiens that encountered A. mellifera discontinued foraging at the observed plant, but exhibited only a slight decrease in foraging following an intraspecific encounter. Interactions between bees that elicit changes in foraging behavior may have important implications for the pollination of wild and managed plants.

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

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baude, M., Dajoz, I., Danchin, E. (2008) Inadvertent social information in foraging bumblebees: effects of flower distribution and implications for pollination. Anim. Behav. 76, 1863–1873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baude, M., Danchin, E., Mugabo, M., Dajoz, I. (2011) Conspecifics as informers and competitors: an experimental study in foraging bumble-bees. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 2806–2813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Breed, M. (1983) Nestmate recognition in honey bees. Anim. Behav. 31, 86–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cane, J.H., Payne, J. (1988) Foraging ecology of the bee Habropoda laboriosa (Hymenoptera, Anthophoridae), an oligolege of blueberries (Ericaceae, Vaccinium) in the southeastern United States. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 81, 419–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, E.H., Chittka, L. (2012) Conspecific and heterospecific information use in bumblebees. PLoS. One. 7, e31444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dedej, S., Delaplane, K. (2005) Net energetic advantage drives honey bees (Apis mellifera L) to nectar larceny in Vaccinium ashei Reade. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 398–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delaplane, K.S., Mayer, D.F. (2000) Crop Pollination by Bees. CABI, Wallingford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson-Matasci, M.C., DeGrandi-Hoffman, G., Dornhaus, A. (2013) Bigger is better: honeybee colonies as distributed information-gathering systems. Anim. Behav. 85, 585–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, S., Ratnieks, F. (2000) Adaptive shifts in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) guarding behavior support predictions of the acceptance threshold model. Behav. Ecol. 11, 326–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eickwort, G., Ginsberg, H. (1980) Foraging and mating-behavior in Apoidea. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 25, 421–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinsinger, P. (1987) Effects of plant-species on each other’s pollination—is community structure influenced? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2, 123–126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, T., Morris, W., Wilson, W. (2004) When can two plant species facilitate each other’s pollination? Oikos 105, 197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine, C., Collin, C.L., Dajoz, I. (2008) Generalist foraging of pollinators: diet expansion at high density. J. Ecol. 96, 1002–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, R. (1992) Nestmate recognition as an inbreeding avoidance mechanism in bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 65, 238–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawleta, N., Zimmermann, Y., Eltz, T. (2005) Repellent foraging scent recognition across bee families. Apidologie 36, 325–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, E., Nieh, J.C. (2012) Public use of olfactory information associated with predation in two species of social bees. Anim. Behav. 84, 919–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson, D. (2003) Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, S.S., Kremen, C. (2006) Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 13890–13895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Inouye, D. (1978) Resource partitioning in bumblebees—experimental studies of foraging behavior. Ecology 59, 672–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jean, R.P. (2005) Quantifying a rare event: pollen theft by honey bees from bumble bees and other bees (Apoidea: Apidae, Megachilidae) foraging at flowers. J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 78, 172–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawaguchi, L.G., Kazuharu, O., Toquenaga, Y. (2007) Contrasting responses of bumble bees to feeding conspecifics on their familiar and unfamiliar flowers. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 2661–2667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kawaguchi, L.G., Ohashi, K., Toquenaga, Y. (2006) Do bumble bees save time when choosing novel flowers by following conspecifics? Funct. Ecol. 20, 239–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leadbeater, E., Chittka, L. (2005) A new mode of information transfer in foraging bumblebees. Curr. Biol. 15, 447–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leadbeater, E., Chittka, L. (2011) Do inexperienced bumblebee foragers use scent marks as social information? Anim. Cogn. 14, 915–919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, E.M., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L., Nieh, J.C. (2010) Behavioral suites mediate group-level foraging dynamics in communities of tropical stingless bees. Insectes Soc. 57, 105–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Makino, T.T., Sakai, S. (2005) Does interaction between bumblebees (Bombus ignitus) reduce their foraging area?: bee removal experiments in a net cage. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 617–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michener, C. (1979) Biogeography of the bees. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 66, 277–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T.B. (1960) Bees of the eastern United States. I. N. C. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 141, 1–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T.B. (1962) Bees of the eastern United States. II. N. C. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 152, 1–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, D. (1982) Foraging relationships within a guild of bumble bees. Insectes Soc. 29, 445–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D.A., Thomson, J.D. (2005) Effects of nectar robbing on nectar dynamics and bumblebee foraging strategies in Linaria vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae). Oikos 110, 309–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohashi, K., D’Souza, D., Thomson, J.D. (2010) An automated system for tracking and identifying individual nectar foragers at multiple feeders. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 891–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paini, D.R. (2004) Impact of the introduced honey bee (Apis mellifera) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) on native bees: a review. Austral Ecol. 29, 399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkus-Rendon, M., Parra-Tabla, V., Melendez-Ramirez, V. (2005) Floral resource use and interactions between Apis mellifera and native bees in cucurbit crops in Yucatan. Mexico Can. Entomol. 137, 441–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts, S., Vulliamy, B., Dafni, A., Ne’eman, G., Willmer, P. (2003) Linking bees and flowers: how do floral communities structure pollinator communities? Ecology 84, 2628–2642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raine, N.E., Chittka, L. (2007) Flower constancy and memory dynamics in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus). Entomol. Gen. 29, 179–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, S. R. (2012) Pollination ecology of highbush blueberry agroecosystems. MS thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

  • Sanchez-Lafuente, A.M., Rodriguez-Girones, M.A., Parra, R. (2012) Interaction frequency and per-interaction effects as predictors of total effects in plant–pollinator mutualisms: a case study with the self-incompatible herb Linaria lilacina. Oecologia 168, 153–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley, T.D. (1986) Social foraging by honeybees: how colonies allocate foragers among patches of flowers. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19, 343–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter, I., Munzenberg, U., Burger, C., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T. (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83, 1421–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout, J., Goulson, D. (2001) The use of conspecific and interspecific scent marks by foraging bumblebees and honeybees. Anim. Behav. 62, 183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J.D. (1989) Reversal of apparent feeding preferences of bumble bees by aggression from Vespula wasps. Can. J. Zool. 67, 2588–2591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2003) Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecol. Lett. 6, 961–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N.M., Crone, E.E., Roulston, T.H., Minckley, R.L., Packer, L., et al. (2010) Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2280–2291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N.M., Kremen, C. (2007) Resource distributions among habitats determine solitary bee offspring production in a mosaic landscape. Ecol. Appl. 17, 910–921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Witjes, S., Eltz, T. (2007) Influence of scent deposits on flower choice: experiments in an artificial flower array with bumblebees. Apidologie 38, 12–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Edward Waked and Samantha Walker, who participated in experimental design and setup, and Jennifer Keller, who maintained bee colonies. Emily White helped transcribe video data and Vincent Toups assisted with data analysis. Fred Gould, Nick Haddad, and Michael Simone-Finstrom provided feedback on the manuscript. This study was supported by funding from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to S.R.R.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Shelley R. Rogers, Peter Cajamarca, David R. Tarpy & Hannah J. Burrack

Authors
  1. Shelley R. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Cajamarca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David R. Tarpy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hannah J. Burrack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelley R. Rogers.

Additional information

Manuscript editor: James Nieh

Les abeilles et les bourdons répondent différemment aux rencontres inter- ou intra-spécifique

Apis / Bombus / compétition / pollinisation/ comportement d’approvisionnement / évitement interspécifique

Honigbienen und Hummeln zeigen unterschiedliche Antworten bei inner- und zwischenartigen Zusammentreffen

Apis / Bombus / Wettbewerb/ zwischenartige Vermeidung/ Bestäubung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rogers, S.R., Cajamarca, P., Tarpy, D.R. et al. Honey bees and bumble bees respond differently to inter- and intra-specific encounters. Apidologie 44, 621–629 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-013-0210-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-013-0210-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation