4.1 Article

Foraging habitats and floral resource use by colonies of long- and short-tongued bumble bee species in an agricultural landscape with kabocha squash fields

Journal

APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 181-190

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s13355-012-0106-x

Keywords

Bombus diversus; Bombus hypocrita; Colony density; Cucurbita maxima; Foraging range

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bumble bees pollinate and forage on flowers of crop and wild plants in agricultural landscapes. These interactions may depend on landscape patterns and bumble bee traits. We studied the abundance, colony density, and foraging range in long-tongued Bombus diversus Smith and short-tongued B. hypocrita P,rez, and evaluated their visits to flowers of wild plants and cultivated kabocha squash (Cucurbita maxima Duchesne). In forests in a farmland, B. hypocrita workers were trapped more frequently in the canopy. Full-sibs determined by nuclear microsatellite genotypes among workers collected in the farmland showed higher colony density and a larger foraging radius in B. hypocrita (30.8 km(-2) and 848 m) than in B. diversus (8.3 km(-2) and 723 m), respectively. Regarding wild plants, workers more frequently visited shallow flowers in B. hypocrita and deep flowers in B. diversus. These results suggest that bumble bees with different traits forage on different wild flowers in different habitats. Squash flowers were visited by both bumble bee species at similar frequency in the latter period of colony growth when males and new queens appeared. Composition of full-sib workers visiting squash and wild flowers did not depend on the number of collected workers of individual colonies, indicating that foraging on squash flowers was not associated with colony growth. Thus, growth and reproduction of bumble bee colonies may be supported by various wild plants and cultivated squash, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available