Literature DB >> 28309608

Resource heterogeneity and patterns of movement in foraging bumblebees.

Bernd Heinrich1.   

Abstract

Differences in the foraging behavior of B. terricola workers on white clover, Trifolium repens, were examined on previously unvisited (filled) and depleted flowers, and as a function of flower-head density. 1. The number of florets visited per unit time was independent of flower head density from 20 to at least 290 heads/m2, in part because the bees utilized more florets per head at low flower head densities, and also because they approached but rejected more flower heads at high rather than at low flower head densities. 2. Previously visited clover-heads were approached but often rejected, while unvisited heads were not rejected. 3. The bees behaved markedly different while foraging in patches of flowers which were available to all foragers, than in those which had been screened and contained on the average 3.9 times more sugar; they tendent to move through depleted areas and to concentrate in rich areas. On successive flower-head visits in depleted areas they moved more forward than backward (82% vs. 18%), while in rich areas they tended to move almost as much backward as forward 47% vs. 53%). 4. The distances of inter-head moves were approximately twice as long in depleted as in rich areas. 5. The bees visited almost as many florets per unit time in the rich as in the depleted areas (32 vs. 35 per min). But in the rich patches they probed on the average into 11.6 florets per head in contrast to only 2.3 florets per depleted head. 6. In an experiment with B. vagans workers foraging from Aconitum napellus inflorescences, the bees did not reject previously visited flowers, and they moved upward in successive flower visits on inverted as well as on unaltered inflorescences. On horizontal inflorescences they moved both right and left. The movements are not a direct response to nectar differences, nor to differences in average nectar distributions. The systematic foraging behavior on vertical inflorescences may thus be a mechanism of reducing the revisiting of just-emptied flowers.

Entities:  

Year:  1979        PMID: 28309608     DOI: 10.1007/BF00345321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  1 in total

1.  Optimal foraging: movement patterns of bumblebees between inflorescences.

Authors:  G H Pyke
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1978-02       Impact factor: 1.570

  1 in total
  40 in total

1.  Does flower color variation matter in deception pollinated Psychilis monensis (Orchidaceae)?

Authors:  Susan Aragón; James D Ackerman
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2003-12-10       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Feeding responses of free-flying honeybees to secondary compounds mimicking floral nectars.

Authors:  Natarajan Singaravelan; Gidi Nee'man; Moshe Inbar; Ido Izhaki
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2005-12-18       Impact factor: 2.626

3.  Density effects of flowering phenology and mating potential in Nicotiana alata.

Authors:  Elizabeth E Lyons; Thaddeus W Mully
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  The pollination biology and breeding system of Monarda fistulosa (Labiatae).

Authors:  Robert William Cruden; Luise Hermanutz; Jane Shuttleworth
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Effects of recent experience on foraging decisions by bumble bees.

Authors:  Reuven Dukas; Leslie A Real
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Geographic distribution and community structure of bumblebees in the northern Iberian peninsula.

Authors:  José Ramón Obeso
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Remote perception of floral nectar by bumblebees.

Authors:  James H Marden
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Do foraging bumblebees scent-mark food sources and does it matter?

Authors:  Ulrich Schmitt; Andreas Bertsch
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 9.  Treating hummingbirds as feathered bees: a case of ethological cross-pollination.

Authors:  D J Pritchard; M C Tello Ramos; F Muth; S D Healy
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 3.703

10.  Mechanistic analysis of the search behaviour of Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  Liliana C M Salvador; Frederic Bartumeus; Simon A Levin; William S Ryu
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 4.118

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.