The pollination potential of free-foraging bumblebee (Bombus spp.) males (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Wolf, Stephan; Moritz, Robin F. A.

doi:10.1007/s13592-013-0259-9

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar behavioural responses to medium to large colour distances have been reported for workers of B. terrestris ( Dyer and Chittka, 2004a , Dyer and Chittka, 2004b ) and several other bee species ( Chittka et al., 2001 ) translating into high levels of flower constancy ( Chittka et al., 1999 , Waser, 1986 ), which facilitates conspecific pollen transfer. The similarity of the foraging behaviour of bumblebee males and workers supports the recent recognition of bumblebee males as valuable pollinators ( Ogilvie and Thomson, 2015b , Ostevik et al., 2010 , Wolf and Moritz, 2014 ). Thus, our findings also have implications for the study of pollination ecology of both wild and commercial plants, which has thus far rarely considered the functional contribution male bees may make to the behavioural diversity of pollinator assemblages and, in consequence, to the quality of the pollination service ( Garibaldi et al., 2013 , Hoehn et al., 2008 , Klein et al., 2003 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Minimized time investment ( Burns, 2005 , Chittka et al., 2003 , Dyer and Chittka, 2004b ), optimized energy intakes ( Cartar and Dill, 1990 , Waddington et al., 1981 ) and lower exposure to parasites ( Fouks & Lattorff, 2011 ) and predators ( Abbott, 2006 , Dukas, 2001 , Dukas, 2005 , Ings and Chittka, 2008 , Ings and Chittka, 2009 ) are only some factors that have shaped the foraging behaviour of workers. Likewise, in male bees, flower choice patterns reminiscent of those of females have been recorded or inferred in orchid bees (Euglossini; Ackerman, 1982 ) and some bumblebee species ( Alcock et al., 1978 , Jennersten et al., 1991 , Ogilvie and Thomson, 2015a , Ostevik et al., 2010 , Wolf and Moritz, 2014 ) indicating that male bees are at least capable of some behavioural adjustment to the foraging conditions. Yet, it remains unknown whether the males' need to accommodate both mate search and foraging in their cognitive system have compromised their foraging abilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Male bumblebees, Bombus terrestris, perform equally well as workers in a serial colour-learning task

Wolf

Chittka

2016

Animal Behaviour

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The learning capacities of males and females may differ with sex-specific behavioural requirements. Bumblebees provide a useful model system to explore how different lifestyles are reflected in learning abilities, because their (female but sterile) workers and males engage in fundamentally different behaviour routines. Bumblebee males, like workers, embark on active flower foraging but in contrast to workers they have to trade off their feeding with mate search, potentially affecting their abilities to learn and utilize floral cues efficiently during foraging. We used a serial colour-learning task with freely flying males and workers to compare their ability to flexibly learn visual floral cues with reward in a foraging scenario that changed over time. Male bumblebees did not differ from workers in both their learning speed and their ability to overcome previously acquired associations, when these ceased to predict reward. In all foraging tasks we found a significant improvement in choice accuracy in both sexes over the course of the training. In both sexes, the characteristics of the foraging performance depended largely on the colour difference of the two presented feeder types. Large colour distances entailed fast and reliable learning of the rewarding feeders whereas choice accuracy on highly similar colours improved significantly more slowly. Conversely, switching from a learned feeder type to a novel one was fastest for similar feeder colours and slow for highly different ones. Overall, we show that behavioural sex dimorphism in bumblebees did not affect their learning abilities beyond the mating context. We discuss the possible drivers and limitations shaping the foraging abilities of males and workers and implications for pollination ecology. We also suggest stingless male bumblebees as an advantageous alternative model system for the study of pollinator cognition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Male bumblebees, Bombus terrestris, perform equally well as workers in a serial colour-learning task

Wolf

Chittka

2016

Animal Behaviour

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar consumption by females of relatively higher-protein diets has been observed in Heliconius butterflies, which are unusual among Lepidopterans in that they feed on pollen as adults (Boggs, Smiley, TA B L E 1 Summary of sex-associated differences in foraging patterns and morphology among pollinators and their potential impact on pollen transfer Martins et al (2013), Wolf and Moritz (2014), Carpenter and Castronova (1980) Visitation rate, reward removal per visit, species visited…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Offspring provisioning: primarily females Females collect resources to directly feed offspring, males often don't Hymenoptera (Apidae), Apodiformes (Trochilidae) Shafir et al (2005), Ne'eman et al (2006), Martins et al (2013), Wolf and Moritz (2014), Carpenter and Castronova (1980) Visitation rate, reward removal per visit, species visited…”

Section: Potential Difference In Plant Servicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sex differences in pollinator behavior: Patterns across species and consequences for the mutualism

Smith

Bronstein

Papaj

2019

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intraspecific variation in floral visitor behaviour and pollination efficiency has been much less studied than interspecific variation. Nevertheless, it is clear that large differences in these traits exist within species, and in particular between sexes within species. With the exception of a few well‐studied interactions, however, the consequences of these differences in the pollinators and visited plants remain to be investigated. In this review, we document large and consistent differences in the foraging patterns of male and female pollinators that have been demonstrated to directly affect plant reproduction or that have clear potential to do so. Males and females differ in visitation frequency, type of flowers visited, and per‐visit pollen transfer. Females gather more and different resources from flowers compared to males, and males generally tend to show more mobile foraging patterns than females. We argue that these sex‐associated patterns have broad generality across pollinators, and that sex‐associated differences can in some cases be larger than differences between species. We offer predictions about how these patterns will influence pollinator preference, specialization, and fidelity, as well as the cost, quality and quantity of pollination service to plants. In the face of increasing threats to plant–pollinator interactions, understanding their basic functioning and the variation inherent in their component parts is critical. We advocate for more attention to sex‐based differences among pollinators in particular, and the consequences of intraspecific variation more broadly.

show abstract

Pollinator functional group abundance and floral heterogeneity in an agroecological context affect mating patterns in a self‐incompatible wild plant

Labonté,

Le Corre,

Matejicek

et al. 2024

American J of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PremiseRestoration of seminatural field margins can elevate pollinator activity. However, how they support wild plant gene flow through interactions between pollinators and spatiotemporal gradients in floral resources remains largely unknown.MethodsUsing a farm‐scale experiment, we tested how mating outcomes (expected heterozygosity and paternity correlation) of the wild, self‐incompatible plant Cyanus segetum transplanted into field margins (sown wildflower or grass‐legume strips) were affected by the abundance of different pollinator functional groups (defined by species traits). We also investigated how the maternal plant attractiveness, conspecific pollen donor density, and heterospecific floral richness and density interacted with pollinator functional group abundance to modulate C. segetum mating outcomes.ResultsMultiple paternity increased (=lower paternity correlation) with greater local abundance of hoverflies (syrphids) and female medium‐sized wild bees (albeit the latter's effect diminished with decreasing maternal plant attractiveness), and the presence of male bumblebees (Bombus) under low local floral richness. Cyanus segetum progeny genetic diversity increased with male Bombus presence but decreased with greater abundance of syrphids and honey bees (Apis mellifera).ConclusionsOverall, field margins supported plant‐pollinator interactions ensuring multiple paternity and conservation of allelic diversity in C. segetum progeny. The contribution to plant mating outcomes of different pollinator functional groups was dictated by their local abundance or traits affecting pollen transfer efficiency. The local floral richness or maternal plant attractiveness sometimes modulated these relationships. This complex response of wild plant mating patterns to community interactions has implications for the use of field margins to restore functional pollination systems in farmed landscapes.

show abstract

The pollination potential of free-foraging bumblebee (Bombus spp.) males (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Cited by 15 publications

References 67 publications

Male bumblebees, Bombus terrestris, perform equally well as workers in a serial colour-learning task

Male bumblebees, Bombus terrestris, perform equally well as workers in a serial colour-learning task

Sex differences in pollinator behavior: Patterns across species and consequences for the mutualism

Pollinator functional group abundance and floral heterogeneity in an agroecological context affect mating patterns in a self‐incompatible wild plant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About