How many flower types can bumble bees work at the same time?

1998 ◽  
Vol 76 (7) ◽  
pp. 1358-1365 ◽  
Author(s):  
R J Gegear ◽  
T M Laverty

Bumble bees often restrict their foraging behaviour to the flowers of two plant species on a single foraging trip ("a major and a minor" sensu Heinrich), perhaps because learning additional flower-handling techniques interferes with their ability to recall previously learned flower-handling skills. This hypothesis was tested with bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) foraging on arrays of artificial flower types. Test bees were first trained on one flower type, then retested on the same flower type after learning one, two, or three different types. The number of flower types selected by bees on a mixed array consisting of several types was also tested. Interference effects increased with the number and complexity of interfering flower types: a 0% increase for one simple flower type; 278% for two simple flower types; 357% for three simple flower types; and 565% for two complex flower types; switching among more than two flower types caused substantial interference. On the mixed array of three flower types, none of the 20 foragers tested randomly visited all three types, 67% primarily visited two types, and 33% primarily visited one type. These findings suggest that the bees limited the number of flower types to two because of the substantial costs incurred when a third flower type was included in their foraging repertoire.

1995 ◽  
Vol 73 (11) ◽  
pp. 2052-2058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Gegear ◽  
Terence M. Laverty

Pollinators often forage sequentially among the flowers of the same plant species while bypassing flowers of other rewarding species. Darwin proposed that it is more efficient for pollinators to remain constant to one plant species because switching to a second species interferes with their ability to recall a previously learned flower-handling technique. This interference hypothesis was tested using Bombus impatiens workers. Bees that had learned to handle one type of flower (species A) were retested on species A after they had learned to handle a second type of flower (species B). Interference effects were detected by comparing flower access times (time to insert the tongue into the flower) during the retesting period with initial access times on species A. Bees retested on both simple (red clover, Trifolium pratense) and complex (toadflax, Linaria vulgaris) flowers showed no evidence of interference after learning simple-flowered plant species (blueweed, Echium vulgare; purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria). However, bees relearning the complex flowers of toadflax showed a 2.2-s (81%) increase over their initial access time after switching to a second complex-flowered species (orange touch-me-not, Impatiens capensis). These results suggest that the interference effects incurred by bees switching between toadflax and orange touch-me-not under biologically realistic conditions are relatively small, and are unlikely to account for flower constancy in bumble bees.


Behaviour ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 132 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 87-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.M.S. Plowright ◽  
Y.G. Korneluk

AbstractBumble bees (Bombus impatiens) were trained to discriminate between a rewarding and non-rewarding artificial flower that differed only in their configuration of four identical petals. On choice tests between 2 empty flowers, the bees chose the flower with the configuration of the rewarding flower over the mirror image, but the mirror image over a novel flower. This behaviour is the same as has been observed with honey bees and functional interpretations are considered. The problem of distinguishing between left-right pattern reversals and true mirror image transformations is discussed.


Behaviour ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 136 (8) ◽  
pp. 951-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Cohen-Salmon ◽  
France Landry ◽  
Virginia Simonds ◽  

AbstractThis study documented two behavioural responses to pollen and nectar deprivation in a colony of bumble bees: flower handling and choice. In two laboratory experiments, colonies were deprived, on successive days, of pollen and of nectar. In the first experiment, the bees foraged on thistle flowers, and in the second, they foraged on artificial flowers. In both studies, flower handling depended on deprivation condition: the relative frequency of scrabbling for pollen rather than probing for nectar was of the order of tenfold higher when the colony was deprived of pollen. Choice also depended on deprivation condition. In Experiment 1, old thistle flowers, which had abundant pollen visible, were visited more frequently than new flowers when the colony was deprived of pollen. Similarly in Experiment 2, the row of artificial flowers containing both nectar and pollen was visited more frequently than the row of flowers containing only nectar when the colony was deprived of pollen.


1994 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence M. Laverty

Many pollinators tend to move between flowers of the same species of plant even when flowers of other species are available. Reasons for this behaviour (known as flower constancy) are unclear. One possible explanation (proposed by Darwin) is that flower handling methods learned on one plant species interfere with previously learned handling methods of other plant species. Darwin's hypothesis was tested by measuring the constancy of bumble bees (Bombus fervidus) foraging in the field and looking for evidence of interference (increased handling times and flower handling errors) when bees switched among four species with relatively simple flowers (Prunella vulgaris, Trifolium pratense, T. hybridum, and Vicia cracca) and two species with more complex flowers (Aconitum napellus and Impatiens capensis). Bees foraging on simple flowers showed no tendency towards flower constancy, and switching between species did not increase handling times or handling errors. Foragers displayed strong constancy when visiting the species with more complex flowers and there was also some evidence of increased handling times and error frequencies following switches. However, the time costs of switching were small (about 1 s over the first flower visit after a switch) and are unlikely to account for flower constancy by bumble bees foraging under natural conditions.


1998 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 730-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
E L West ◽  
T M Laverty

Bumble bees are known to prefer symmetrical over asymmetrical flowers and bilateral over radial flower types. This study examined the basis of these preferences in three experiments with artificial flowers. The first experiment showed that flower-naive worker bees (Bombus impatiens) displayed no innate preference for symmetrical over asymmetrical or bilateral over radial flowers in choice tests. The second experiment tested whether bees showed a learning or memory bias for symmetrical over asymmetrical rewarding flowers when foraging on arrays of either bilateral or radial flower types. There was no evidence that bees learned or remembered symmetrical rewarding flowers better than asymmetrical rewarding flowers. The percentage of visits to rewarding flowers during test runs for bees foraging on arrays with bilateral flowers was consistently greater than on arrays with radial flowers. A third experiment examined the effect of nectar-guide symmetry on flower-handling and travel times. Bees were tested on homogeneous arrays with bilateral or radial flowers of either symmetrical or asymmetrical shapes and with symmetrical, asymmetrical, or no nectar guides. Guide symmetry had no effect on flower-handling or travel times. However, bees handled symmetrical flowers about 20% faster than asymmetrical flowers and bilateral flowers about 45% faster than radial flowers; travel times of bees on arrays with bilateral flowers were about 2.5 times faster than travel times of bees foraging on arrays of radial flowers.


1997 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Chittka ◽  
Andreas Gumbert ◽  
Jan Kunze
Keyword(s):  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e50353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolin Mayer ◽  
Denis Michez ◽  
Alban Chyzy ◽  
Elise Brédat ◽  
Anne-Laure Jacquemart

Holzforschung ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (11) ◽  
pp. 1015-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernt O. Myrvold

Abstract The salting-out of lignosulfonates (LSs) follows the Hofmeister series, but different LSs show different susceptibility to salting-out. By comparing results for a large number of LSs from different plant species, pulping conditions, and post-treatment of the LS, it was found that the salting-out concentration for different LSs is mainly due to differences in the plant species with guaiacyl LS being much more salt-tolerant than guaiacyl-syringyl LS. The pulping conditions have only a minor effect on the salt tolerance of the different LSs. Post-treatment that increases the molecular weight or reduces the sulfonation also reduces the salt tolerance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document