Cargando…

Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right

Nearly all bees rely on pollen as the sole protein source for the development of their larvae. The central importance of pollen for the bee life cycle should exert strong selection on their ability to locate the most rewarding sources of pollen. Despite this importance, very few studies have examine...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carr, David E., Haber, Ariela I., LeCroy, Kathryn A., Lee, De'Ashia E., Link, Rosabeth I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4417137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25858692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv034
_version_ 1782369313330561024
author Carr, David E.
Haber, Ariela I.
LeCroy, Kathryn A.
Lee, De'Ashia E.
Link, Rosabeth I.
author_facet Carr, David E.
Haber, Ariela I.
LeCroy, Kathryn A.
Lee, De'Ashia E.
Link, Rosabeth I.
author_sort Carr, David E.
collection PubMed
description Nearly all bees rely on pollen as the sole protein source for the development of their larvae. The central importance of pollen for the bee life cycle should exert strong selection on their ability to locate the most rewarding sources of pollen. Despite this importance, very few studies have examined the influence of intraspecific variation in pollen rewards on the foraging decisions of bees. Previous studies have demonstrated that inbreeding reduces viability and hence protein content in Mimulus guttatus (seep monkeyflower) pollen and that bees strongly discriminate against inbred in favour of outbred plants. We examined whether variation in pollen viability could explain this preference using a series of choice tests with living plants, artificial plants and olfactometer tests using the bumble bee Bombus impatiens. We found that B. impatiens preferred to visit artificial plants provisioned with fertile anthers over those provisioned with sterile anthers. They also preferred fertile anthers when provided only olfactory cues. These bumble bees were unable to discriminate among live plants from subpopulations differing dramatically in pollen viability, however. They preferred outbred plants even when those plants were from subpopulations with pollen viability as low as the inbred populations. Their preference for outbred plants was evident even when only olfactory cues were available. Our data showed that bumble bees are able to differentiate between anthers that provide higher rewards when cues are isolated from the rest of the flower. When confronted with cues from the entire flower, their choices are independent of the quality of the pollen reward, suggesting that they are responding more strongly to cues unassociated with rewards than to those correlated with rewards. If so, this suggests that a sensory bias or some level of deception may be involved with advertisement to pollinators in M. guttatus.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4417137
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44171372015-06-01 Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right Carr, David E. Haber, Ariela I. LeCroy, Kathryn A. Lee, De'Ashia E. Link, Rosabeth I. AoB Plants Research Articles Nearly all bees rely on pollen as the sole protein source for the development of their larvae. The central importance of pollen for the bee life cycle should exert strong selection on their ability to locate the most rewarding sources of pollen. Despite this importance, very few studies have examined the influence of intraspecific variation in pollen rewards on the foraging decisions of bees. Previous studies have demonstrated that inbreeding reduces viability and hence protein content in Mimulus guttatus (seep monkeyflower) pollen and that bees strongly discriminate against inbred in favour of outbred plants. We examined whether variation in pollen viability could explain this preference using a series of choice tests with living plants, artificial plants and olfactometer tests using the bumble bee Bombus impatiens. We found that B. impatiens preferred to visit artificial plants provisioned with fertile anthers over those provisioned with sterile anthers. They also preferred fertile anthers when provided only olfactory cues. These bumble bees were unable to discriminate among live plants from subpopulations differing dramatically in pollen viability, however. They preferred outbred plants even when those plants were from subpopulations with pollen viability as low as the inbred populations. Their preference for outbred plants was evident even when only olfactory cues were available. Our data showed that bumble bees are able to differentiate between anthers that provide higher rewards when cues are isolated from the rest of the flower. When confronted with cues from the entire flower, their choices are independent of the quality of the pollen reward, suggesting that they are responding more strongly to cues unassociated with rewards than to those correlated with rewards. If so, this suggests that a sensory bias or some level of deception may be involved with advertisement to pollinators in M. guttatus. Oxford University Press 2015-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4417137/ /pubmed/25858692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv034 Text en Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Carr, David E.
Haber, Ariela I.
LeCroy, Kathryn A.
Lee, De'Ashia E.
Link, Rosabeth I.
Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right
title Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right
title_full Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right
title_fullStr Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right
title_full_unstemmed Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right
title_short Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right
title_sort variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4417137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25858692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv034
work_keys_str_mv AT carrdavide variationinrewardqualityandpollinatorattractiontheconsumerdoesnotalwaysgetitright
AT haberarielai variationinrewardqualityandpollinatorattractiontheconsumerdoesnotalwaysgetitright
AT lecroykathryna variationinrewardqualityandpollinatorattractiontheconsumerdoesnotalwaysgetitright
AT leedeashiae variationinrewardqualityandpollinatorattractiontheconsumerdoesnotalwaysgetitright
AT linkrosabethi variationinrewardqualityandpollinatorattractiontheconsumerdoesnotalwaysgetitright