Foraging of honey bees in agricultural landscapes with changing patterns of flower resources

Honeybees optimize their foraging behaviour in relation to spatio-temporal changes in nectar and pollen availability

“…Our results furthermore indicate the relevance of lime trees as a nectar source in urban areas and P. tanacetifolia as a pollen source in rural areas. In contrast to previous studies (Steffan-Dewenter and Kuhn 2003;Danner et al 2016;Danner et al 2017;Bänsch et al 2020) we found that honeybees did not extend their foraging range in response to floral resource scarcity but extended their foraging range to exploit a highly rewarding resource. This optimization of foraging behaviour in response to the availability of highly rewarding resources implies a trade-off between the distance travelled to a foraging site and the reward that is expected from the resource.…”

“…They mostly forage for highly rewarding resources and due to their complex social organization foraging sites can be communicated to nestmates (Rollin et al 2013;Sponsler et al 2017). Foraging distances of honeybees are often below 1000 m, but in extreme cases foraging distances can reach up to 14 km (Visscher and Seeley 1982;Beekman and Ratnieks 2000;Couvillon et al 2014;Danner et al 2016;Balfour and Ratnieks 2017;Danner et al 2017;Bänsch et al 2020). Here we investigate the spatio-temporal changes of honeybee foraging behaviour in rural and urban landscapes in response to lime tree (Tilia spp.…”

Crop pollination services: Complementary resource use by social vs solitary bees facing crops with contrasting flower supply

“…We used digital land cover maps (InVeKoS: database of agricultural cropping; https://www.zi-daten.de/) that were provided by the agricultural departments of the German states Lower Saxony (Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen, 2015) and Hesse (Landesbetrieb Landwirtschaft Hessen, 2015) to calculate the OSR land cover; that is, the percentage of OSR fields that covered the defined area of a landscape circle within a 1,000 m radius around our experimental fields. We decided upon 1,000 m as it covers the foraging distances of most relevant bee species (Bänsch, Tscharntke, Ratnieks, et al., 2020; Gathmann & Tscharntke, 2002; Zurbuchen et al., 2010). Although honey bees and bumble bees can fly larger distances (Bänsch, Tscharntke, Ratnieks, et al., 2020; Osborne et al., 2008), distances are often below <1,000 m, which has been shown in particular for honey bees in spring (Bänsch, Tscharntke, Ratnieks, et al., 2020).…”

“…the percentage of OSR fields that covered the defined area of a landscape circle within a 1000 m radius around our experimental fields. We decided upon 1000 m as it covers the foraging distances of most relevant bee species (Bänsch et al 2020a, Gathman and Tscharntke 2002, Zurbuchen et al 2010). Although honey bees and bumble bees can fly larger distances (Bänsch et al 2020a, Osborne et al 2008, distances are often below < 1000 m, which has been shown in particular for honey bees in spring (Bänsch et al 2020a).…”

Reduced nest development of reared Bombus terrestris within apiary dense human-modified landscapes

“…Honey bee foraging distance, depending on landscape complexity and flower patch rewards, can exceed 1.5 kms 28 . Yet the probability of flower visitation decreases non-linearly with distance from the hive, with a large majority of the foraging trips within a radius of 750 m, based on waggle dance decoding of honey bees in such landscapes (average distances 633-740 m) [29][30][31] . Thus, we aimed to achieve a large distance between sites to reduce the probability of spillover from the apiary dense sites to the apiary sparse sites.…”