Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T00:53:13.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA L.) ON STAGHORN SUMAC [RHUS HIRTA SUDWORTH (EX-TYPHINA L.)]: DIFFERENCES AND DIOECY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Carlos F. Greco ,
Dean Holland  and
Peter G. Kevan
Carlos F. Greco
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Dean Holland
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Peter G. Kevan
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The foraging behaviour of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) on inflorescences of staghorn sumac [Rhus hirta Sudworth (ex-typhina L.)] was studied using a “choice table” placed in natural stands of this plant. The choice table consisted of a wooden grid with alternated male and female inflorescences of sumac. Honey bee activity was recorded also on inflorescences of naturally growing plants in which the secretion of nectar was measured and the anther dehiscence recorded. Honey bees were the only common pollinators observed on sumac in the study area. During the morning, both plant sexes secreted little nectar, and pollen was available after the dehiscence of the anthers which took place between 1000 and 1100 hours. Female inflorescences secreted great amounts of nectar during the afternoon, but in male inflorescences there was little secretion. Honey bees seemed to forage according to the circadian availability of resources. Most of their activity concentrated on male inflorescences in the morning and on female ones during the afternoon. Both the occurrence of bees with pollen loads in their corbiculae and the length of the visits to each sex also seemed to be in accordance to the kind of resource exploited at particular times of the day. Most of the bees with pollen loads were observed during the morning and the longest visits to any inflorescences were registered on female ones during the afternoon (by bees foraging for nectar). Despite our results suggesting that the pollination success of staghorn sumac would be impaired by the foraging pattern of honey bees, an explanation is proposed for its reproductive success.

Résumé

Le comportement de recherche de nourriture de l’Abeille domestique (Apis mellifera L.) sur les inflorescences du Vinaigrier [Rhus hirta Sudworth (ex-typhina L.)] a été étudié au moyen d’une “table de choix” installée dans des boisés naturels de cette plante. La table était une grille de bois où alternaient les inflorescences mâles et femelles de la plante. L’activité des abeilles a également été enregistrée sur des inflorescences de vinaigriers témoins dont la sécrétion de nectar a été mesurée et la déhiscence des anthères a été notée. Les abeilles étaient les seuls pollinisateurs communs du Vinaigrier dans la zone d’étude. Au cours de la matinée, les inflorescences mâles et femelles de la plante sécrètent peu de nectar et le pollen est disponible après la déhiscence des anthères qui se produit entre 1000 et 1100 heures. Les inflorescences femelles sécrètent de grandes quantités de nectar au cours de l’après-midi, mais les inflorescences mâles sécrètent peu. Les abeilles semblent se nourrir en fonction du cycle circadien de disponibilité des ressources. L’activité de recherche de nourriture est concentrée sur les inflorescences mâles le matin, et sur les inflorescences femelles durant l’après-midi. La présence des abeilles à corbicules remplis de pollen et la durée de leurs visites aux inflorescences de chaque sexe semblent correspondre au type de ressource exploité à des moments particuliers de la journée. La plupart des abeilles à corbicules remplis de pollen ont été observées au cours de la matinée et les visites les plus longues aux inflorescences ont été enrigistrées sur des inflorescences femelles au cours de l’après-midi (par des abeilles à la recherche de nectar). Malgré nos résultats qui indiquent que le succès de la pollinisation du Vinaigrier est limité par l’activité alimentaire des abeilles, nous proposons une explication au succès de la reproduction chez le Vinaigrier.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 128 , Issue 3 , June 1996 , pp. 355 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barkley, F. 1937. A monographic study of Rhus and its immediate allies in North and Central America, including the West Indies. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 24(3): 265–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawa, K.S. 1980. Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.G., Jeffrey, E.D., and Kalmus, H.. 1943. The behaviour of a population of honey bees on an artificial and on a natural crop. Journal of Experimental Biology 20: 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T.A. 1984. Agronomic and chemical evaluation of smooth sumac Rhus glabra. Economic Botany 38: 218–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGrandi-Hoffman, G., Hoopingarner, R., and Baker, K.. 1984. Pollen transfer in apple orchards tree-to-tree or bee-to-bee? Bee World 65(2): 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGrandi-Hoffman, G., Hoopingarner, R.A., Baker, K.K., and Klomparens, K.. 1986. The influence of honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in-hive pollen transfer on cross-pollination and fruit set in apple. Environmental Entomology 15: 723–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Free, J.B. 1960. The pollination of fruit trees. Bee World 41(6): 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Free, J.B. 1966. The foraging areas of honey bees in an orchard of standard apple trees. Journal of Applied Ecology 3: 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Free, J.B., and Williams, I.H.. 1972. The transport of pollen on the body hairs of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and bumblebees (Bombus spp.). Journal of Applied Ecology 9: 609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Free, J.B., and Williams, I.H.. 1983. Foraging behaviour of honey bees and bumblebees on brussels sprouts grown to produce hybrid seeds. Journal of Apicultural Research 22(2): 94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosie, R.C. 1979. Native Trees of Canada. Fitzhhenry & Whiteside Ltd. 380 pp.Google Scholar
Kay, Q.O.N., Lack, A.J., Bamber, F.C., and Davies, C.R.. 1984. Differences between sexes in floral morphology nectar productions and insect visits in a dioecious species Silene dioica. New Phytologist 98: 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevan, P.G., Eisikowitch, D., Ambrose, J.D., and Kemp, J.R.. 1990. Cryptic dioecy and insect pollination in Rosa setigera Michx (Rosaceae) a rare plant of Carolinian Canada. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 40: 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, W.G. 1985. Sumac…more than just a honey plant. American Bee Journal 125(1): 44–45.Google Scholar
Lovett Doust, J., and Doust, L. Lovett. 1988. Modules of production and reproduction in a dioecious clonal shrub Rhus typhina L. Ecology 69: 741–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, A. 1956. Some aspects of foraging behaviour of bumblebees. Behaviour 9: 164–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellet, F.C. 1976. American Honey Plants. Together with those which are of special value to the beekeeper as sources of pollen. 5th ed. Dadant & Sons Inc. 467 pp.Google Scholar
Pyke, G.H. 1979. Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Rules of movements between flowers within inflorescences. Animal Behaviour 27: 1167–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. 1987. Plants for Beekeeping in Canada and the Northern USA: A Directory of Nectar and Pollen Sources found in Canada and the Northern USA. International Bee Research Association, London. 198 pp.Google Scholar
Reveal, J.L. 1991. Rhus hirta (L.) Sudworth, a newly-revived correct name for Rhus typhina L. (Anacardiaceae). Taxon 40: 489–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribbands, C.R. 1949. The foraging method of individual honey bees. Journal of Animal Ecology 18: 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, G., and Page, R.E.. 1989. Genetic determination of nectar foraging, pollen foraging and nest site scouting in honey bee colonies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24: 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid-Hempel, P. 1984. The importance of handling time for the flight directionality in bees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 15: 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, R.D. 1980. Flight pattern of foraging bees in relation to artificial flower density and distribution of nectar. Oecologia 44: 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, H., and Wells, P.. 1986. Optimal diet, minimal uncertainty and individual constancies in the foraging of honey bees, Apis mellifera. Journal of Animal Ecology 55: 881–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D.A. 1972. The reproductive biology of Rhus integrifiolia and Rhus ovata (Anacardiaceae). Evolution 26: 406–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed