Busy Bees: Variation in Insect Flower-Visiting Rates across Multiple Plant Species

Abstract

We quantified insect visitation rates by counting how many flowers/inflorescences were probed per unit time for five plant species (four native and one garden: California lilac, bramble, ragwort, wild marjoram, and ivy) growing in Sussex, United Kingdom, by following individual insects ( = 2987) from nine functional groups (honey bees (Apis mellifera), bumble bees (Bombus spp.), hoverflies, flies, butterflies, beetles, wasps, non-Apidae bees, and moths). Additionally, we made a census of the insect diversity on the studied plant species. Overall we found that insect groups differed greatly in their rate of flower visits ( < 2.2 −16 ), with bumble bees and honey bees visiting significantly more flowers per time (11.5 and 9.2 flowers/minute, resp.) than the other insect groups. Additionally, we report on a within-group difference in the non-Apidae bees, where the genus Osmia, which is often suggested as an alternative to honey bees as a managed pollinator, was very speedy (13.4 flowers/minute) compared to the other non-Apidae bees (4.3 flowers/minute). Our census showed that the plants attracted a range of insects, with the honey bee as the most abundant visitor (34%). Therefore, rate differences cannot be explained by particular specializations. Lastly, we discuss potential implications of our conclusions for pollination.

Plants and pollinators: will natural selection cause an imbalance between nectar supply and demand?

“…Pollinators would seem to be exploitable to work for "low wages" at a time of nectar scarcity, provided these wages are above the minimum needed to make an energy profit. Bees are able to cope with small energy gains per flower because they can visit flowers at a great rate (Couvillon et al 2015), thereby accumulating many small rewards. Most female bees and some wasps are nest builders and need to forage not just for their own needs but for the needs of their nest or colony.…”

Foraging Behaviour and Pollination Efficiency of Heterotrigona itama (Cockerell) and Tetragonula laeviceps (Smith) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) on Chayote

“…Serangga polinator biasanya memiliki perilaku kunjungan yang berbeda (Ne'eman et al 2010;Couvillon et al 2015). Durasi kunjungan H. itama pada bunga berkisar 2,348,1 detik dengan rataan 13,6±0,7 detik, yang berbeda nyata (t=3,91; P<0,001) dibandingkan dengan durasi kunjungan T. laeviceps yang berkisar 2,7132,1 detik dengan rataan 30,9±4,3 detik.…”

“…Teuweul H. itama mengunjungi bunga sebanyak 3,1±0,2 bunga per menit, sedangkan T. laeviceps sebanyak 1,8±0,1 bunga per menit (t=6,61, P<0,001) (Gambar 4b). Laju kunjungan merupakan parameter yang penting dalam studi polinasi (Couvillon et al 2015). Semakin banyak bunga yang dikunjungi semakin efisien suatu spesies serangga sebagai polinator.…”

Thermal blanketing by ivy (Hedera helix L.) can protect building stone from damaging frosts

“…Removal is, however, often difficult, time consuming and expensive, and in some cases attempts to remove well-established growth will have disastrous consequences for the underlying structure 8 . There are also strong arguments against removal given its considerable contribution to biodiversity 9 – 11 and – some would argue – aesthetic appeal 12 – 14 . This is especially true in the case of ruined sites 15 and at a time when ‘greening’ of the built environment to maximise ecological and social value is high on the policy agenda 16 – 18 .…”