Floral vibrations by buzz-pollinating bees achieve higher frequency, velocity and acceleration than flight and defence vibrations

Towards acoustic monitoring of bees: wingbeat sounds are related to species and individual traits

Global pollinator decline urgently requires effective methods to assess their trends, distribution and behaviour. Passive acoustics is a non-invasive and cost-efficient monitoring tool increasingly employed for monitoring animal communities. However, insect sounds remain highly unexplored, hindering the application of this technique for pollinators. To overcome this shortfall and support future developments, we recorded and characterized wingbeat sounds of a variety of Iberian domestic and wild bees and tested their relationship with taxonomic, morphological, behavioural and environmental traits at inter- and intra-specific levels. Using directional microphones and machine learning, we shed light on the acoustic signature of bee wingbeat sounds and their potential to be used for species identification and monitoring. Our results revealed that frequency of wingbeat sounds is negatively related with body size and environmental temperature (between-species analysis), while it is positively related with experimentally induced stress conditions (within-individual analysis). We also found a characteristic acoustic signature in the European honeybee that supported automated classification of this bee from a pool of wild bees, paving the way for passive acoustic monitoring of pollinators. Overall, these findings confirm that insect sounds during flight activity can provide insights on individual and species traits, and hence suggest novel and promising applications for this endangered animal group. This article is part of the theme issue 'Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring'.

Harvesting pollen with vibrations: towards an integrative understanding of the proximate and ultimate reasons for buzz pollination

Buzz pollination, a type of interaction in which bees use vibrations to extract pollen from certain kinds of flowers, captures a close relationship between thousands of bee and plant species. In the last 120 years, studies of buzz pollination have contributed to our understanding of the natural history of buzz pollination, and basic properties of the vibrations produced by bees and applied to flowers in model systems. Yet, much remains to be done to establish its adaptive significance and the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of buzz pollination across diverse plant and bee systems. Here, we review for bees and plants the proximate (mechanism and ontogeny) and ultimate (adaptive significance and evolution) explanations for buzz pollination, focusing especially on integrating across these levels to synthesize and identify prominent gaps in our knowledge. Throughout, we highlight new technical and modelling approaches and the importance of considering morphology, biomechanics and behaviour in shaping our understanding of the adaptive significance of buzz pollination. We end by discussing the ecological context of buzz pollination and how a multilevel perspective can contribute to explain the proximate and evolutionary reasons for this ancient bee-plant interaction.

Carpenter bee thorax vibration and force generation inform pollen release mechanisms during floral buzzing

Approximately 10% of flowering plant species conceal their pollen within tube-like poricidal anthers. Bees extract pollen from poricidal anthers via floral buzzing, a behavior during which they apply cyclic forces by biting the anther and rapidly contracting their flight muscles. The success of pollen extraction during floral buzzing relies on the direction and magnitude of the forces applied by the bees, yet these forces and forcing directions have not been previously quantified. In this work, we developed an experiment to simultaneously measure the directional forces and thorax kinematics produced by carpenter bees (Xylocopa californica) during defensive buzzing, a behavior regulated by similar physiological mechanisms as floral buzzing. We found that the buzzing frequencies averaged about 130 Hz and were highly variable within individuals. Force amplitudes were on average 170 mN, but at times reached nearly 500 mN. These forces were 30–80 times greater than the weight of the bees tested. The two largest forces occurred within a plane formed by the bees’ flight muscles. Force amplitudes were moderately correlated with thorax displacement, velocity and acceleration amplitudes but only weakly correlated with buzzing frequency. Linear models developed through this work provide a mechanism to estimate forces produced during non-flight behaviors based on thorax kinematic measurements in carpenter bees. Based on the buzzing frequencies, individual bee’s capacity to vary buzz frequency and predominant forcing directions, we hypothesize that carpenter bees leverage vibration amplification to increase the deformation of poricidal anthers, and hence the amount of pollen ejected.

Anther cones increase pollen release in buzz-pollinated Solanum flowers

The widespread evolution of tube-like anthers releasing pollen from apical pores is associated with buzz pollination, in which bees vibrate flowers to remove pollen. The mechanical connection among anthers in buzz-pollinated species varies from loosely held conformations, to anthers tightly held together with trichomes or bioadhesives forming a functionally joined conical structure (anther cone). Joined anther cones in buzz-pollinated species have evolved independently across plant families and via different genetic mechanisms, yet their functional significance remains mostly untested. We used experimental manipulations to compare vibrational and functional (pollen release) consequences of joined anther cones in three buzz-pollinated species of Solanum (Solanaceae). We applied bee-like vibrations to focal anthers in flowers with ("joined") and without ("free") experimentally created joined anther cones, and characterized vibrations transmitted to other anthers and the amount of pollen released. We found that joined anther architectures cause nonfocal anthers to vibrate at higher amplitudes than free architectures. Moreover, in the two species with naturally loosely held anthers, anther fusion increases pollen release, whereas in the species with a free but naturally compact architecture it does not. We discuss hypotheses for the adaptive significance of the convergent evolution of joined anther cones.

Reduced visitation to buzz‐pollinated Cyanella hyacinthoides in the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Many plant species have floral morphologies that restrict access to floral resources, such as pollen or nectar, and only a subset of floral visitors can perform the handling behaviors required to extract restricted resources. Due to the time and energy required to extract resources from morphologically complex flowers, these plant species potentially compete for pollinators with co‐flowering plants that have more easily accessible resources. A widespread floral mechanism restricting access to pollen is the presence of tubular anthers that open through small pores or slits (poricidal anthers). Some bees have evolved the capacity to remove pollen from poricidal anthers using vibrations, giving rise to the phenomenon of buzz‐pollination. These bee vibrations that are produced for pollen extraction are presumably energetically costly, and to date, few studies have investigated whether buzz‐pollinated flowers may be at a disadvantage when competing for pollinators’ attention with plant species that present unrestricted pollen resources. Here, we studied Cyanella hyacinthoides (Tecophilaeaceae), a geophyte with poricidal anthers in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, to assess how the composition and relative abundance of flowers with easily accessible pollen affect bee visitation to a buzz‐pollinated plant. We found that the number of pollinator species of C. hyacinthoides was not influenced by community composition. However, visitation rates to C. hyacinthoides were reduced when the relative abundances of flowers with more accessible resources were high. Visitation rates were strongly associated with petal color, showing that flower color is important in mediating these interactions. We conclude that buzz‐pollinated plants might be at a competitive disadvantage when many easily accessible pollen sources are available, particularly when competitor species share its floral signals.

Structural dynamics of real and modelled Solanum stamens: implications for pollen ejection by buzzing bees

An estimated 10% of flowering plant species conceal their pollen within tube-like anthers that dehisce through small apical pores (poricidal anthers). Bees extract pollen from poricidal anthers through a complex motor routine called floral buzzing, whereby the bee applies vibratory forces to the flower stamen by rapidly contracting its flight muscles. The resulting deformation depends on the stamen's natural frequencies and vibration mode shapes, yet for most poricidal species, these properties have not been sufficiently characterized. We performed experimental modal analysis on Solanum elaeagnifolium stamens to quantify their natural frequencies and vibration modes. Based on morphometric and dynamic measurements, we developed a finite-element model of the stamen to identify how variable material properties, geometry and bee weight could affect its dynamics. In general, stamen natural frequencies fell outside the reported floral buzzing range, and variations in stamen geometry and material properties were unlikely to bring natural frequencies within this range. However, inclusion of bee mass reduced natural frequencies to within the floral buzzing frequency range and gave rise to an axial-bending vibration mode. We hypothesize that floral buzzing bees exploit the large vibration amplification factor of this mode to increase anther deformation, which may facilitate pollen ejection.

How and why do bees buzz? Implications for buzz pollination

Buzz pollination encompasses the evolutionary convergence of specialized floral morphologies and pollinator behaviour in which bees use vibrations (floral buzzes) to remove pollen. Floral buzzes are one of several types of vibrations produced by bees using their thoracic muscles. Here I review how bees can produce these different types of vibrations and discuss the implications of this mechanistic understanding for buzz pollination. I propose that bee buzzes can be categorized according to their mode of production and deployment into: (i) thermogenic, which generate heat with little mechanical vibration; (ii) flight buzzes which, combined with wing deployment and thoracic vibration, power flight; and (iii) non-flight buzzes in which the thorax vibrates but the wings remain mostly folded, and include floral, defence, mating, communication, and nest-building buzzes. I hypothesize that the characteristics of non-flight buzzes, including floral buzzes, can be modulated by bees via modification of the biomechanical properties of the thorax through activity of auxiliary muscles, changing the rate of activation of the indirect flight muscles, and modifying flower handling behaviours. Thus, bees should be able to fine-tune mechanical properties of their floral vibrations, including frequency and amplitude, depending on flower characteristics and pollen availability to optimize energy use and pollen collection.

Examining the Role of Buzzing Time and Acoustics on Pollen Extraction of Solanum elaeagnifolium

Buzz pollination is a specialized pollination syndrome that requires vibrational energy to extract concealed pollen grains from poricidal anthers. Although a large body of work has examined the ecology of buzz pollination, whether acoustic properties of buzz pollinators affect pollen extraction is less understood, especially in weeds and invasive species. We examined the pollination biology of Silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), a worldwide invasive weed, in its native range in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) in south Texas. Over two years, we documented the floral visitors on S. elaeagnifolium, their acoustic parameters (buzzing amplitude, frequency, and duration of buzzing) and estimated the effects of the latter two factors on pollen extraction. We found five major bee genera: Exomalopsis, Halictus, Megachile, Bombus, and Xylocopa, as the most common floral visitors on S. elaeagnifolium in the LRGV. Bee genera varied in their duration of total buzzing time, duration of each visit, and mass. While we did not find any significant differences in buzzing frequency among different genera, an artificial pollen collection experiment using an electric toothbrush showed that the amount of pollen extracted is significantly affected by the duration of buzzing. We conclude that regardless of buzzing frequency, buzzing duration is the most critical factor in pollen removal in this species.

Machine learning approach for automatic recognition of tomato-pollinating bees based on their buzzing-sounds

Bee-mediated pollination greatly increases the size and weight of tomato fruits. Therefore, distinguishing between the local set of bees–those that are efficient pollinators–is essential to improve the economic returns for farmers. To achieve this, it is important to know the identity of the visiting bees. Nevertheless, the traditional taxonomic identification of bees is not an easy task, requiring the participation of experts and the use of specialized equipment. Due to these limitations, the development and implementation of new technologies for the automatic recognition of bees become relevant. Hence, we aim to verify the capacity of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms in recognizing the taxonomic identity of visiting bees to tomato flowers based on the characteristics of their buzzing sounds. We compared the performance of the ML algorithms combined with the Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC) and with classifications based solely on the fundamental frequency, leading to a direct comparison between the two approaches. In fact, some classifiers powered by the MFCC–especially the SVM–achieved better performance compared to the randomized and sound frequency-based trials. Moreover, the buzzing sounds produced during sonication were more relevant for the taxonomic recognition of bee species than analysis based on flight sounds alone. On the other hand, the ML classifiers performed better in recognizing bees genera based on flight sounds. Despite that, the maximum accuracy obtained here (73.39% by SVM) is still low compared to ML standards. Further studies analyzing larger recording samples, and applying unsupervised learning systems may yield better classification performance. Therefore, ML techniques could be used to automate the taxonomic recognition of flower-visiting bees of the cultivated tomato and other buzz-pollinated crops. This would be an interesting option for farmers and other professionals who have no experience in bee taxonomy but are interested in improving crop yields by increasing pollination.

Bees are the most important pollinators of cultivated tomatoes. We also know that the distinct species of bees have different performances as pollinators, and these performances are directly related to the size and weight of the fruits. Moreover, the characteristics of the buzzing sounds tend to vary between the bee species. However, the buzzing sounds are complex and can widely vary over time, making the analysis of this data difficult using the usual statistical methods in Ecology. In the face of this problem, we proposed to automatically recognize pollinating bees of tomato flowers based on their buzzing sounds using Machine Learning (ML) tools. In fact, we found that the ML algorithms are capable of recognizing bees just based on their buzzing sounds. This could lead to automating the recognition of flower-visiting bees of the cultivated tomato, which would be a nice option for farmers and other professionals who have no experience in bee taxonomy but are interested in improving crop yields. On the other hand, this encourages the farmer to adopt sustainable agricultural practices for the conservation of native tomato pollinators. To achieve this goal, the next step is to develop applications compatible with smartphones capable of recognizing bees by their buzzing sounds.

Investigation of pollen release by poricidal anthers using mathematical billiards

Buzz pollination is described using a mathematical model considering a billiard approach. Applications to a rough morphology of a typical poricidal anther of a tomato flower (Solanum lycopersicum) experiencing vibrations applied by a bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) are made. The anther is described by a rectangular billiard with a pore on its tip while the borders are perturbed by specific oscillations according to the vibrational properties of the bumblebee. Pollen grains are considered as noninteracting particles that can escape through the pore. Our results not only recover some observed data but also provide a possible answer to an open problem involving buzz pollination.

Mutualisms and (A)symmetry in Plant-Pollinator Interactions

The majority of flowering plants relies on animal pollinators for sexual reproduction and many animal pollinators rely on floral resources. However, interests of plants and pollinators are often not the same, resulting in an asymmetric relationship that ranges from mutualistic to parasitic interactions. Our understanding of the processes that underlie this asymmetry remains fragmentary. In this Review, we bring together evidence from evolutionary biology, plant chemistry, biomechanics, sensory ecology and behaviour to illustrate that the degree of symmetry often depends on the perspective taken. We also highlight variation in (a)symmetry within and between plant and pollinator species as well as between geographic locations. Through taking different perspectives from the plant and pollinator sides we provide new ground for studies on the maintenance and evolution of animal pollination and on the (a)symmetry in plant-pollinator interactions.

Overview of Bee Pollination and Its Economic Value for Crop Production

Simple Summary

There is a rising demand for food security in the face of threats posed by a growing human population. Bees as an insect play a crucial role in crop pollination alongside other animal pollinators such as bats, birds, beetles, moths, hoverflies, wasps, thrips, and butterflies and other vectors such as wind and water. Bees contribute to the global food supply via pollinating a wide range of crops, including fruits, vegetables, oilseeds, legumes, etc. The economic benefit of bees to food production per year was reported including the cash crops, i.e., coffee, cocoa, almond and soybean, compared to self-pollination. Bee pollination improves the quality and quantity of fruits, nuts, and oils. Bee colonies are faced with many challenges that influence their growth, reproduction, and sustainability, particularly climate change, pesticides, land use, and management strength, so it is important to highlight these factors for the sake of gainful pollination.

Abstract

Pollination plays a significant role in the agriculture sector and serves as a basic pillar for crop production. Plants depend on vectors to move pollen, which can include water, wind, and animal pollinators like bats, moths, hoverflies, birds, bees, butterflies, wasps, thrips, and beetles. Cultivated plants are typically pollinated by animals. Animal-based pollination contributes to 30% of global food production, and bee-pollinated crops contribute to approximately one-third of the total human dietary supply. Bees are considered significant pollinators due to their effectiveness and wide availability. Bee pollination provides excellent value to crop quality and quantity, improving global economic and dietary outcomes. This review highlights the role played by bee pollination, which influences the economy, and enlists the different types of bees and other insects associated with pollination.

Transmission of bee-like vibrations in buzz-pollinated plants with different stamen architectures

In buzz-pollinated plants, bees apply thoracic vibrations to the flower, causing pollen release from anthers, often through apical pores. Bees grasp one or more anthers with their mandibles, and vibrations are transmitted to this focal anther(s), adjacent anthers, and the whole flower. Pollen release depends on anther vibration, and thus it should be affected by vibration transmission through flowers with distinct morphologies, as found among buzz-pollinated taxa. We compare vibration transmission between focal and non-focal anthers in four species with contrasting stamen architectures: Cyclamen persicum, Exacum affine, Solanum dulcamara and S. houstonii. We used a mechanical transducer to apply bee-like vibrations to focal anthers, measuring the vibration frequency and displacement amplitude at focal and non-focal anther tips simultaneously using high-speed video analysis (6000 frames per second). In flowers in which anthers are tightly arranged (C. persicum and S. dulcamara), vibrations in focal and non-focal anthers are indistinguishable in both frequency and displacement amplitude. In contrast, flowers with loosely arranged anthers (E. affine) including those with differentiated stamens (heterantherous S. houstonii), show the same frequency but higher displacement amplitude in non-focal anthers compared to focal anthers. We suggest that stamen architecture modulates vibration transmission, potentially affecting pollen release and bee behaviour.

Biomechanical properties of a buzz-pollinated flower

Approximately half of all bee species use vibrations to remove pollen from plants with diverse floral morphologies. In many buzz-pollinated flowers, these mechanical vibrations generated by bees are transmitted through floral tissues, principally pollen-containing anthers, causing pollen to be ejected from small openings (pores or slits) at the tip of the stamen. Despite the importance of substrate-borne vibrations for both bees and plants, few studies to date have characterized the transmission properties of floral vibrations. In this study, we use contactless laser vibrometry to evaluate the transmission of vibrations in the corolla and anthers of buzz-pollinated flowers of Solanum rostratum, and measure vibrations in three spatial axes. We found that floral vibrations conserve their dominant frequency (300 Hz) as they are transmitted throughout the flower. We also found that vibration amplitude at anthers and petals can be up to greater than 400% higher than input amplitude applied at the receptacle at the base of the flower, and that anthers vibrate with a higher amplitude velocity than petals. Together, these results suggest that vibrations travel differently through floral structures and across different spatial axes. As pollen release is a function of vibration amplitude, we conjecture that bees might benefit from applying vibrations in the axes associated with higher vibration amplification.