Energetic efficiency of foraging mediates bee niche partitioning

Bumblebees compensate for the adverse effects of sidewind during visually guided landings

Flying animals often encounter winds during visually guided landings. However, how winds affect their flight control strategy during landing is unknown. Here, we investigated how sidewind affects the landing performance and sensorimotor control of foraging bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). We trained bumblebees to forage in a wind tunnel, and used high-speed stereoscopic videography to record 19,421 landing maneuvers in six sidewind speeds (0 to 3.4 m s-1), which correspond to winds encountered in nature. Bumblebees landed less often in higher windspeeds, but the landing durations from free flight were not increased by wind. By testing how bumblebees adjusted their landing control to compensate for adverse effects of sidewind on landing, we showed that the landing strategy in sidewind resembled that in still air, but with important adaptations. Bumblebees landing in a sidewind tended to drift downwind, which they controlled for by performing more hover maneuvers. Surprisingly, the increased hover prevalence did not increase the duration of free-flight landing maneuvers, as these bumblebees flew faster towards the landing platform outside the hover phases. Hence, by alternating these two flight modes along their flight path, free-flying bumblebees negated the adverse effects of high windspeeds on landing duration. Using control theory, we hypothesize that bumblebees achieve this by integrating a combination of direct aerodynamic feedback and a wind-mediated mechanosensory feedback control, with their vision-based sensorimotor control loop. The revealed landing strategy may be commonly used by insects landing in windy conditions, and may inspire the development of landing control strategies onboard autonomously flying robots.

Bumblebees negotiate a trade-off between nectar quality and floral biomechanics

How and why pollinators choose which flowers to visit are fundamental, multifaceted questions in pollination biology, yet most studies of floral traits measure simple relative preferences. Here, we used vertically and horizontally oriented slippery-surfaced artificial flowers to test whether bumblebees could make a trade-off between floral handling difficulty and nectar sucrose concentration. We quantified foraging energetics, thereby resolving the rationale behind the bees' foraging decisions. The bees chose flowers with either a high handling cost or low sucrose concentration, depending on which was the energetically favorable option. Their behavior agreed with the critical currency being the rate of energy return (net energy collected per unit time), not energetic efficiency (net energy collected per unit energy spent). This suggests that bumblebees prioritize immediate carbohydrate flow to the nest rather than energy gain over the working lifespan of each bee. Trade-off paradigms like these are a powerful approach for quantifying pollinator trait preferences.

Ecological Drivers and Consequences of Bumble Bee Body Size Variation

Body size is arguably one of the most important traits influencing the physiology and ecology of animals. Shifts in animal body size have been observed in response to climate change, including in bumble bees (Bombus spp. [Hymenoptera: Apidae]). Bumble bee size shifts have occurred concurrently with the precipitous population declines of several species, which appear to be related, in part, to their size. Body size variation is central to the ecology of bumble bees, from their social organization to the pollination services they provide to plants. If bumble bee size is shifted or constrained, there may be consequences for the pollination services they provide and for our ability to predict their responses to global change. Yet, there are still many aspects of the breadth and role of bumble bee body size variation that require more study. To this end, we review the current evidence of the ecological drivers of size variation in bumble bees and the consequences of that variation on bumble bee fitness, foraging, and species interactions. In total we review: (1) the proximate determinants and physiological consequences of size variation in bumble bees; (2) the environmental drivers and ecological consequences of size variation; and (3) synthesize our understanding of size variation in predicting how bumble bees will respond to future changes in climate and land use. As global change intensifies, a better understanding of the factors influencing the size distributions of bumble bees, and the consequences of those distributions, will allow us to better predict future responses of these pollinators.

Plants and pollinators: Will natural selection cause an imbalance between nectar supply and demand?

Pollination is an important ecological process. However, plant and pollinator needs are not always met. Commonly, pollen limitation reduces seed set or bees experience nectar dearth. Using a cost-benefit approach, we show that natural selection will lead to lower nectar production when pollinators are abundant, and vice-versa. At the community level, competition among plants for pollinators causes positive feedback that exacerbates pre-existing seasonal imbalances between nectar supply and demand. When pollinators are scarce, plants will be selected to produce more nectar to outcompete other plants in attracting pollinators, and when pollinators are abundant, plants will be selected to produce less nectar. We suggest ways to test this positive feedback hypothesis and note that evidence for seasonal variation in nectar availability provides preliminary empirical support. If correct, our hypothesis indicates that pollination faces a particular challenge in balancing nectar supply with pollinator demand and is a further example of the underappreciated role of positive feedback in ecology and evolution.