Literature DB >> 28312344

Remote perception of floral nectar by bumblebees.

James H Marden1.   

Abstract

On both artificial flowers in the laboratory and certain plant species in the field, bumblebees often closely approached flowers and then departed without probing for nectar. In laboratory experiments where nectar rewards were associated with subtle visual or olfactory cues, bumblebees approached and avoided non-rewarding flowers. Flowers that bees entered and probed for nectar contained rewards much more frequently than predicted by chance alone. When there were no external cues associated with nectar content, bees visited rewarding flowers by chance alone, provided rewarding flowers were not spatially clumped. In the field, bumblebees approached and rejected a large proportion of dogbane flowers and red clover inflorescences. On both species, flowers or inflorescences probed by bees contained more nectar than those rejected by bees or those that I chose at random. On fireweed and monkshood, bees rarely or never approached and rejected healthy-looking flowers. Predictions generated by an optimal foraging model were tested on data from four bumblebee species foraging on red clover. The model was highly successful in qualitatively predicting the relationship between handling time and proportion of inflorescences rejected by individual bees, and the relationship between threshold nectar content for acceptance by bees and average resource availability. Thus, bees appeared to use remotely perceived cues to maximize their rates of nectar intake.

Entities:  

Year:  1984        PMID: 28312344     DOI: 10.1007/BF00376876

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


  15 in total

1.  The compression hypothesis and temporal resource partitioning.

Authors:  T W Schoener
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1974-10       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem.

Authors:  E L Charnov
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1976-04       Impact factor: 1.570

3.  A bonanza-blank pollinator reward schedule in Delphinium nelsonii (Ranunculaceae).

Authors:  Don Brink
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  The distribution of standing crop of nectar: what does it really tell us?

Authors:  John M Pleasants; Michael Zimmerman
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  ASSORTATIVE POLLINATION FOR STATURE IN LYTHRUM SALICARIA.

Authors:  Donald A Levin; Harold W Kerster
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1973-03       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  DENSITY DEPENDENT FORAGING ON LIATRIS PYCNOSTACHYA.

Authors:  Barbara A Schaal
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  Nectar production rates of Asclepias quadrifolia: causes and consequences of individual variation.

Authors:  John M Pleasants; Stephen J Chaplin
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 3.225

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

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

9.  POLLINATOR FORAGING ON FOXGLOVE (DIGITALIS PURPUREA): A TEST OF A NEW MODEL.

Authors:  Lynn S Best; Paulette Bierzychudek
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  Patchiness in the dispersion of nectar resources: Probable causes.

Authors:  Michael Zimmerman
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1981-05       Impact factor: 3.225

View more
  12 in total

1.  Foraging scent marks of bumblebees: footprint cues rather than pheromone signals.

Authors:  Jessica Wilms; Thomas Eltz
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2007-08-28

Review 2.  Dynamic scaling in chemical ecology.

Authors:  Richard K Zimmer; Cheryl Ann Zimmer
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2008-06-03       Impact factor: 2.626

3.  How and why do nectar-foraging bumblebees initiate movements between inflorescences of wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa (Lamiaceae)?

Authors:  James E Cresswell
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  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

5.  Intrapopulation variation in nectar secretion in Impatiens capensis.

Authors:  J H Marden
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Bumblebee visits to Impatiens spp.: pattern and efficiency.

Authors:  Makoto Kato
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Why do honeybees reject certain flowers?

Authors:  Peter B Wetherwax
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Honeybees mark with scent and reject recently visited flowers.

Authors:  Martin Giurfa; Josué A Núñez
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  The effect of pollination on floral fragrance in thistles.

Authors:  Nina Theis; Robert A Raguso
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2005-10-25       Impact factor: 2.626

10.  Host adaptation in the anther smut fungus Ustilago violacea (Microbotryum violaceum): infection success, spore production and alteration of floral traits on two host species and their F1-hybrid.

Authors:  Arjen Biere; Sonja Honders
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.