Onset of morning activity in bumblebee foragers under natural low light conditions

Why diversity matters for understanding the visual ecology and behaviour of bees

Two bee species, the European honeybee and the buff-tailed bumblebee, are well developed models of visual behaviour and ecology. How representative of bees across phylogeny and geography are these two species? Bee sensory systems likely differ between temperate and tropical species due to differences in the intensity or the types of selection pressures. Differences in temperate and tropical floral diversity, abundance and seasonality can influence sensory adaptations and behaviours. Niche partitioning in the speciose tropics along the microhabitat and temporal axes is increasingly reported to involve special visual adaptations in bees. Inclusive approaches encompassing other bee species, and building on lessons from the 'model' bees will inform how ecology shapes bee senses, and in turn the structure of plant-bee mutualisms.

Bumblebee nest departures under low light conditions at sunrise and sunset

Only a few diurnal animals, such as bumblebees, extend their activity into the time around sunrise and sunset when illumination levels are low. Low light impairs viewing conditions and increases sensory costs, but whether diurnal insects use low light as a cue to make behavioural decisions is uncertain. To investigate how they decide to initiate foraging at these times of day, we observed bumblebee nest-departure behaviours inside a flight net, under naturally changing light conditions. In brighter light bees did not attempt to return to the nest and departed with minimal delay, as expected. In low light the probability of non-departures increased, as a small number of bees attempted to return after spending time on the departure platform. Additionally, in lower illumination bees spent more time on the platform before flying away, up to 68 s. Our results suggest that bees may assess light conditions once outside the colony to inform the decision to depart. These findings give novel insights into how behavioural decisions are made at the start and the end of a foraging day in diurnal animals when the limits of their vision impose additional costs on foraging efficiency.

Shining a light on species coexistence: visual traits drive bumblebee communities

Local coexistence of bees has been explained by flower resource partitioning, but coexisting bumblebee species often have strongly overlapping diets. We investigated if light microhabitat niche separation, underpinned by visual traits, could serve as an alternative mechanism underlying local coexistence of bumblebee species. To this end, we focused on a homogeneous flower resource-bilberry-in a heterogeneous light environment-hemi-boreal forests. We found that bumblebee communities segregated along a gradient of light intensity. The community-weighted mean of the eye parameter-a metric measuring the compromise between light sensitivity and visual resolution-decreased with light intensity, showing a higher investment in light sensitivity of communities observed in darker conditions. This pattern was consistent at the species level. In general, species with higher eye parameter (larger investment in light sensitivity) foraged in dimmer light than those with a lower eye parameter (higher investment in visual resolution). Moreover, species realized niche optimum was linearly related to their eye parameter. These results suggest microhabitat niche partitioning to be a potential mechanism underpinning bumblebee species coexistence. This study highlights the importance of considering sensory traits when studying pollinator habitat use and their ability to cope with changing environments.

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.

Substantial variability in morphological scaling among bumblebee colonies

Differences in organ scaling among individuals may play an important role in determining behavioural variation. In social insects, there are well-documented intraspecific differences in colony behaviour, but the extent that organ scaling differs within and between colonies remains unclear. Using 12 different colonies of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris, we aim to address this knowledge gap by measuring the scaling relationships between three different organs (compound eyes, wings and antennae) and body size in workers. Though colonies were exposed to different rearing temperatures, this environmental variability did not explain the differences of the scaling relationships. Two colonies had differences in wing versus antenna slopes, three colonies showed differences in wing versus eye slopes and a single colony has differences between eye versus antenna slopes. There are also differences in antennae scaling slopes between three different colonies, and we present evidence for putative trade-offs in morphological investment. We discuss the utility of having variable scaling among colonies and the implication for understanding variability in colony fitness and behaviour.