Competition, Foraging Energetics, and the Cost of Sociality in Three Species of Bees

Schaffer, William M.; Jensen, Deborah B.; Hobbs, Donna E.; Gurevitch, Jessica; Todd, James; Schaffer, M. Valentine

doi:10.2307/1936866

Cited by 142 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We recorded several wild bee species of the genera Andrena, Hylaeus, Halictus, Lasioglossum, and Osmia, which include a number of species considered as polylectic (Westrich, 1996). In general, polylectic bees might be more affected by competition with honey bees due to similar foraging preferences (Schaffer et al, 1979(Schaffer et al, , 1983Roubik, 1978;1980). Still, we found no clear evidence of competition between wild bees and honey bees regarding their foraging behaviour on Cistus flowers.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Impact of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) density on wild bee foraging behaviour

Goras

Tananaki

Dimou

et al. 2016

Journal of Apicultural Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c t Honey bees are globally regarded as important crop pollinators and are also valued for their honey production. They have been introduced on an almost worldwide scale. During recent years, however, several studies argue their possible competition with unmanaged pollinators. Here we examine the possible effects of honey bees on the foraging behaviour of wild bees on Cistus creticus flowers in Northern Greece. We gradually introduced one, five, and eight honey-bee hives per site, each containing ca. 20,000 workers. The visitation frequency and visit duration of wild bees before and after the beehive introductions were measured by flower observation. While the visitation frequencies of wild bees were unaffected, the average time wild bees spent on C. creticus increased with the introduction of the honey-bee hives. Although competition between honey bees and wild bees is often expected, we did not find any clear evidence for significant effects even in honey-bee densities much higher than the European-wide average of 3.1 colonies/km 2 .Keywords: Apis mellifera, Cistus creticus, competition, Mediterranean, native bees 1 Laboratory of Apiculture-Sericulture, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece 2 Laboratory of Biogeography and Ecology, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Greece INTRODUCTIONMost plant species depend on animal pollination for their reproduction . Plant-pollinator relationships are of great importance to ecosystem health (Costanza et al., 1997; Kearns, Inouye & Weser, 1998). During recent years, the biodiversity and number of native bees have been repeatedly reported to be in decline worldwide. The decline is mainly due to changes of agricultural activities such as changes in land use, modern agricultural practices, and pesticide use (Allen-Wardell et al., 1998;Potts et al., 2006;Kremen et al., 2007;Goulson et al., 2008; Brown & Paxton, 2009). Pollinator efficiency, and therefore, pollination effectiveness, is strongly related to the compatibility between flowers and their pollinators. Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are extremely polylectic insects (Cane & Sipes, 2006) visiting and pollinating a variety of species (Crane, 1990;Free, 1993;Vaughton, 1992;Gross, 2001;Dupont et al., 2004). In addition, honey bees have been widely and successfully used as pollinators in crop systems (Free, 1993;Morse & Calderone, 2000;Artz, Hsu & Nault, 2011). Several studies, however, have shown that for certain plant species, honey bees are less efficient pollinators compared to wild flower visitors. The continued use of the honey bees and their possible competition with wild bees in natural areas might gradually affect both fauna and flora (Schaffer et al., 1983;Taylor & Whelan, 1988;Westerkamp, 1991;Vaughton, 1996;Gross & Mackay, 1998; Hansen, Olsen & Jones, 2002; Whelan, Ayre & Benyuon, 2009 Impact of honeybee density on wild bees Competition between honey bees and wild bees is believed to affect the foraging behaviour of wild bees. Consequently the fecundity...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Impact of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) density on wild bee foraging behaviour

Goras

Tananaki

Dimou

et al. 2016

Journal of Apicultural Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interspecific competition is assumed to be a major factor in structuring foraging communities on flowers (Schaffer et al, 1979;Pleasants, 1981;Zimmermann and Pleasants, 1982;Schoener, 1987;Westrich, 1989;Corbet et al, 1995). However, the mechanisms underlying these interactions are difficult to test in the field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been suggested that oligolectic species are more sensitive to competition than polylectic and social species (Westrich, 1989;Evertz, 1995). In contrast, Schaffer et al (1979) and Thorp (1996) assumed that high honeybee densities most detrimentally affect social generalists with a foraging behaviour similar to that of honeybees. The latter argument would apply to species such as Bombus terrestris, which is able to fly several kilometres and exploit bonanzas of one flower species on arable fields or mass resources in grassland (Hedtke, 1996;Osborne et al, 1999;Walther-Hellwig and Frankl, 2000;Goulson and Stout, 2001;Kreyer et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased density of honeybee colonies affects foraging bumblebees

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The increasing numbers of endangered wild bee species highlights the need for quantifying potential adverse effects of foraging honeybees. We analysed the response of bumblebees at genus and species level to experimentally increased honeybee density. The study was carried out on a Phacelia tanacetifolia field and adjacent patches of wild plants located in an agricultural landscape. Addition of one or ten A. m. ligustica colonies substantially increased total honeybee density not only on Phacelia but also on neighbouring patches of wild plants. The response of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) differed among species. Only minor spatial changes in the abundance of the short-tongued B. terrestris-group were observed on Phacelia. At wild plant patches, the B. lapidarius-group and the longer tongued bumblebee species (B. muscorum, B. sylvarum, B. pascuorum) responded with a shift between plant species. Limitations of competition avoidance in flower-impoverished landscapes are discussed.Apis mellifera / Bombus / competition avoidance / foraging / exploitative competition

show abstract

“…A similar case of species coexistence was indicated by Davidson (1977) who studied desert seed-eating ant communities containing group and individually foraging species. Schaffer et al (1979), who analyzed the exploitative competition among three bee species visiting Agave flowers, demonstrated further evidence in which coexistence of similar species is maintained by the density specialization. In the present study, wasp species with narrow and wide diet breadth correspond to the high-and low-density specialist, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Miller, 1967;Johnson and Hubbell, 1974), and 3. Species compete exploitatively for the same resource (e.g., Davidson, 1977;Schaffer et al, 1979). Here, four species of eumenid wasps coexisted in part by means of resource partitioning according to the prey size (1) and partly by means of differential diet breadths resulted by respective foraging strategies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential diet breadths and species coexistence in leafroller‐hunting eumenid wasps

Itino

1992

Population Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThere are, at least, three possible ways in which similar species coexist; resource partitioning, interference competition, and exploitation competition. Here, I investigated which way contributed to the coexistence of leafroller-hunting eumenid wasp species. Resource partitioning and, in addition, differential diet breadths proved to promote species coexistence in this case.First, I analyze the prey records and diet overlap of four eumenid species in a local area. The larger two eumenids hunted similar-sized prey items and had similar potential taxonomic prey uses. But the diet breadth of the subsocial eumenid was much wider than that of the solitary one. As a result, the diet overlap between the two large eumenids decreased. This was because the solitary eumenid attend repeatedly to the same hunting site inhabited by one abundant prey species, while the subsocial one made random hunting. On the other hand, the two medium-sized eumenids partitioned resources according to prey size.Secondly, I related these results to prey choice by several other species of eumenid obtained from literature sources. Ten Japanese common eumenids were divided into four groups according to their prey size. In each of the four groups, 2 to 3 wasp species differentiated the habitat (1 group) or coexisted by means of differential diet breadths (parallel with differential sociality, 2 groups).

show abstract

Competition, Foraging Energetics, and the Cost of Sociality in Three Species of Bees

Cited by 142 publications

References 33 publications

Impact of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) density on wild bee foraging behaviour

Impact of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) density on wild bee foraging behaviour

Increased density of honeybee colonies affects foraging bumblebees

Differential diet breadths and species coexistence in leafroller‐hunting eumenid wasps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About