Are Nectar Robbers Cheaters or Mutualists?

Maloof, Joan; Inouye, David W.

doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2651:anrcom]2.0.co;2

Cited by 289 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even in Europe, which lacks ornithophilous flowers (Ford 1985), opportunistic nectar consumption can be energetically important for Sylvia warblers returning after long-distance migratory flights (Schwilch et al 2001). The relationship between bill length and corolla length determines whether nectar-feeding birds are legitimate pollinators or nectar robbers, although the distinction between the two categories is becoming less clear (Maloof and Inouye 2000).…”

Section: Nectar Feeding Is Widespread In Birdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Nectarivory has evolved many times in birds: although best known in hummingbirds, sunbirds and honeyeaters, it also occurs on an opportunistic basis in a varied assortment of birds. We present a phylogenetic analysis of the distribution of nectarivory in birds. Specialised avian nectarivores are generally small, with an energetic lifestyle and high metabolic rates. Their high degree of dependence on nectar as a food source has led to convergence in morphological, physiological and behavioural adaptations. We examine the constituents of nectar which are most important to bird consumers, and how the birds deal with them in terms of physiology and behaviour. There are still unanswered questions: for example, the dichotomy between sucrose-rich nectars in hummingbirdpollinated plants and predominantly hexose-rich nectars in sunbird-pollinated plants appears to have little to do with bird physiologies and may rather reflect patterns of nectar secretion.

show abstract

Section: Nectar Feeding Is Widespread In Birdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nectar robbing is of ecological importance because it represents 'cheating' and thus may impose selection on the mutualistic relationship between plants and pollinators (Maloof & Inouye 2000;Irwin 2006). Taken together, the results of these experiments demonstrate that the adoption of nectar robbing by bees is facilitated by the same behaviour in others, through a simple and ecologically realistic transmission process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…The question of whether nectar robbing might spread quickly through a group of bees, at the accelerated rate typical of social transmission, is evolutionarily interesting because robbers exert selection on the mutualistic relationship between flowering plants and pollinators through their effects on plant fitness (Irwin 2006). Such effects vary from strongly negative to positive, depending upon whether robbing precludes pollination, how robbing influences the behaviour or other pollinators and whether robbers also make legitimate flower visits (Maloof & Inouye 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social transmission of nectar-robbing behaviour in bumble-bees

Leadbeater

Chittka

2008

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social transmission of acquired foraging techniques is rarely considered outside of a vertebrate context. Here, however, we show that nectar robbing by bumble-bees (Bombus terrestris)-an invertebrate behaviour of considerable ecological significance-has the potential to spread through a population at the accelerated rates typical of social transmission. Nectar robbing occurs when individuals either bite through the base of a flower to 'steal' nectar (primary robbing) or use robbing holes that others have made (secondary robbing). We found that experience of foraging from robbed flowers significantly promoted the development of primary robbing in previously legitimate foragers, thus implying that the acquisition of nectar robbing by one individual will facilitate its adoption in others. Our findings suggest that the positive feedback effects of social transmission may potentially play an ecologically important role in the relationship between plants and pollinators.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, the effects of robbers and thieves are complex and not necessarily negative to their host plants. It depends on the identity of the robbers and legitimate pollinators, how much nectar is left by robbers and the variety of flower resources available in the environment (Maloof & Inouye 2000). Indeed, the effect of nectar thievery by flower mites can even be positive to host plants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plant-pollinator systems are often targets of exploitation by nectar robbers and thieves (Inouye 1980), which consume nectar without delivering pollen (Maloof & Inouye 2000). The hummingbird-flower mites (Acari: Mesostigmata: Melicharidae), formerly grouped in Ascidae, are common nectar thieves in Neotropical communities (Colwell 1973, Colwell & Naeem 1994, Krantz & Walter 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flower mites decrease nectar availability in the rain-forest bromeliadNeoregelia johannis

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nectarivorous flower mites can reduce the volume of nectar available to pollinators. The effects of the flower mite Proctolaelaps sp. on nectar availability in flowers of a melittophilous bromeliad Neoregelia johannis (Bromeliaceae) was evaluated in a coastal rain forest in south-eastern Brazil. In a randomized block experiment utilizing 18 flower pairs, one per bromeliad ramet, pollinators (Bombus morio) and mites were excluded, and then nectar volume, sugar concentration and sugar mass were quantified over the anthesis period. Mites significantly reduced nectar volume early in the morning (6h00-8h00), but not later (10h00-12h00). Mites decreased total volume of nectar available up to 22%. Sugar concentration in nectar was higher earlier in the morning, and decreased between 10h00-12h00. The pronounced consumption of nectar by mites during the period of higher sugar concentration reduced the total amount of sugar available to pollinators by 31%. This is the first study showing that flower mites decrease nectar rewards in a melittophilous plant. Because nectar volume by itself incompletely describes nectar production rates and the effects of nectar removal by flower mites on the availability of sugar, our study highlights the inclusion of sugar content in future studies assessing the effects of thieves on nectar production rates.

show abstract

Are Nectar Robbers Cheaters or Mutualists?

Cited by 289 publications

References 60 publications

Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions

Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions

Social transmission of nectar-robbing behaviour in bumble-bees

Flower mites decrease nectar availability in the rain-forest bromeliadNeoregelia johannis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About