Contrasting responses of bumble bees to feeding conspecifics on their familiar and unfamiliar flowers

Animals exploiting their familiar food items often avoid spatio-temporal aggregation with others by avoiding scents, less rewarding areas or visual contacts, thereby minimizing competition or interference when resources are replenished slowly in patches. When animals are searching or assessing available food sources, however, they may benefit from reducing sampling costs by following others at food sites. Therefore, animals may adjust their responses to others depending on their familiarity with foraging situations. Here, we conducted field experiments to test whether nectar-collecting bumble bees make this adjustment. We allowed free-foraging bees to choose between two inflorescences, one occupied by a conspecific bee and another unoccupied. When bees were presented with flowers of a familiar type, they avoided occupied inflorescences. In contrast, bees visited an occupied inflorescence when the flower type was unfamiliar. To our knowledge, this is the first report suggesting that animals adjust their responses to feeding conspecifics depending on their familiarity with food sources. Such behavioural flexibilities should allow foragers to both explore and exploit their environments efficiently.

[1]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Competition and food selection field tests of a theory , 1985 .

[2]  B. Heinrich Ravens in Winter , 1989 .

[3]  W. Maddison,et al.  Behavior of bumble bee pollinators of Aralia hispida Vent. (Araliaceae) , 1982, Oecologia.

[4]  Lars Chittka,et al.  Facultative use of the repellent scent mark in foraging bumblebees: complex versus simple flowers , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  Thomas J Valone,et al.  Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[6]  B. Heinrich Resource Partitioning Among Some Eusocial Insects: Bumblebees , 1976 .

[7]  N. Waser,et al.  CHAPTER 10 – The Adaptive Nature of Floral Traits: Ideas and Eviaence , 1983 .

[8]  Tamiji Inoue,et al.  Aggressive foraging of social bees as a mechanism of floral resource partitioning in an Asian tropical rainforest , 1997, Oecologia.

[9]  Wayne C. Houtcooper,et al.  Distribution and Abundance , 1974 .

[10]  T. White,et al.  The importance of a relative shortage of food in animal ecology , 2004, Oecologia.

[11]  Elizabeth A. Sandlin,et al.  Cue use affects resource subdivision among three coexisting hummingbird species , 2000 .

[12]  E. A. Sandlin Foraging information affects the nature of competitive interactions , 2000 .

[13]  M. Lozada,et al.  Local enhancement in the wasp Vespula germanica Are visual cues all that matter? , 2000, Insectes Sociaux.

[14]  Y. Toquenaga,et al.  Do bumble bees save time when choosing novel flowers by following conspecifics , 2006 .

[15]  A. D. Brian DIFFERENCES IN THE FLOWERS VISITED BY FOUR SPECIES OF BUMBLE-BEES AND THEIR CAUSES , 1957 .

[16]  James D. Thomson,et al.  The Natural History of Bumblebees: A Sourcebook for Investigations , 2001 .

[17]  D. Papaj,et al.  Flower choice copying in bumblebees , 2005, Biology Letters.

[18]  S. Sakai,et al.  Findings on spatial foraging patterns of bumblebees (Bombus ignitus) from a bee-tracking experiment in a net cage , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[19]  P. Wetherwax,et al.  Why do honeybees reject certain flowers? , 1986, Oecologia.

[20]  S. Sakai,et al.  Does interaction between bumblebees (Bombus ignitus) reduce their foraging area?: bee-removal experiments in a net cage , 2005, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[21]  Martin Giurfa,et al.  Honeybees mark with scent and reject recently visited flowers , 2004, Oecologia.

[22]  H. Dreisig Ideal free distributions of nectar foraging bumblebees , 1995 .

[23]  D. Paton,et al.  Peripheral Foraging by Territorial Rufous Hummingbirds: Defense by Exploitation , 1984 .

[24]  D. H. Morse,et al.  Crab spiders affect flower visitation by bees , 2003 .

[25]  J. Biesmeijer,et al.  The use of field–based social information in eusocial foragers: local enhancement among nestmates and heterospecifics in stingless bees , 2003 .

[26]  Intraspecific resource partitioning in brown trout: the temporal distribution of foraging is determined by social rank , 2001 .

[27]  D. Inouye Resource Partitioning in Bumblebees: Experimental Studies of Foraging Behavior , 1978 .

[28]  L. Giraldeau,et al.  Food exploitation: searching for the optimal joining policy. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[29]  L. Chittka,et al.  Flower Constancy, Insect Psychology, and Plant Evolution , 1999, Naturwissenschaften.

[30]  J. Thomson Field Measures of Flower Constancy in Bumblebees , 1981 .

[31]  L. Chittka,et al.  A new mode of information transfer in foraging bumblebees? , 2005, Current Biology.

[32]  J C Stout,et al.  Foraging bumblebees avoid flowers already visited by conspecifics or by other bumblebee species , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  M. Rodríguez-Gironés Resource partitioning among flower visitors: extensions of Possingham’s model , 2006 .

[34]  L. Chittka,et al.  Social Learning: Public Information in Insects , 2005, Current Biology.

[35]  D. J. Howell Flock Foraging in Nectar-Feeding Bats: Advantages to the Bats and to the Host Plants , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[36]  W. Sutherland From Individual Behaviour to Population Ecology , 1996 .

[37]  J C Stout,et al.  The influence of nectar secretion rates on the responses of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) to previously visited flowers , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[38]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  The Distribution and Abundance of Resources Encountered by a Forager , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[39]  L. Harder,et al.  Response of traplining bumble bees to competition experiments: shifts in feeding location and efficiency , 2004, Oecologia.

[40]  M. Hunter,et al.  1 – Natural Variability in Plants and Animals , 1992 .

[41]  M. Raveret Richter,et al.  Resource choice of social wasps: influence of presence, size and species of resident wasps , 1999, Insectes Sociaux.

[42]  R. Vargas,et al.  Local enhancement of arrivals of Ceratitis capitata females on fruit mimics , 2000 .

[43]  Sasha R. X. Dall,et al.  Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[44]  T. Valone,et al.  Public Information: From Nosy Neighbors to Cultural Evolution , 2004, Science.

[45]  James D. Thomson,et al.  Trapline foraging by bumble bees: II. Definition and detection from sequence data , 1997 .

[46]  Bernd Heinrich,et al.  THE FORAGING SPECIALIZATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL BUMBLEBEES , 1976 .

[47]  Bernd Heinrich,et al.  "Majoring" and "Minoring" by Foraging Bumblebees, Bombus Vagans: An Experimental Analysis , 1979 .

[48]  C. Barnard,et al.  Individually recognizable scent marks on flowers made by a solitary bee , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

[49]  T. Yahara,et al.  Visit larger displays but probe proportionally fewer flowers: counterintuitive behaviour of nectar-collecting bumble bees achieves an ideal free distribution , 2002 .