Sonicating bees demonstrate flexible pollen extraction without instrumental learning

Buzz-pollinating bees deliver thoracic vibrations to flowers through periodic biting

Pollinator behavior is vital to plant-pollinator interactions, affecting the acquisition of floral rewards, patterns of pollen transfer, and plant reproductive success. During buzz pollination, bees produce vibrations with their indirect flight muscles to extract pollen from tube-like flowers. Vibrations can be transmitted to the flower via the mandibles, abdomen, legs, or thorax directly. Vibration amplitude at the flower determines the rate of pollen release and should vary with the coupling of bee and flower. This coupling often occurs through anther biting, but no studies have quantified how biting affects flower vibration. Here, we used high-speed filmography to investigate how flower vibration amplitude changes during biting in Bombus terrestris visiting two species of buzz-pollinated flowering plants: Solanum dulcamara and Solanum rostratum (Solanaceae). We found that floral buzzing drives head vibrations up to 3 times greater than those of the thorax, which doubles the vibration amplitude of the anther during biting compared with indirect vibration transmission when not biting. However, the efficiency of this vibration transmission depends on the angle at which the bee bites the anther. Variation in transmission mechanisms, combined with the diversity of vibrations across bee species, yields a rich assortment of potential strategies that bees could employ to access rewards from buzz-pollinated flowers.

Biomechanical properties of non-flight vibrations produced by bees

Bees use thoracic vibrations produced by their indirect flight muscles for powering wingbeats in flight, but also during mating, pollination, defence and nest building. Previous work on non-flight vibrations has mostly focused on acoustic (airborne vibrations) and spectral properties (frequency domain). However, mechanical properties such as the vibration's acceleration amplitude are important in some behaviours, e.g. during buzz pollination, where higher amplitude vibrations remove more pollen from flowers. Bee vibrations have been studied in only a handful of species and we know very little about how they vary among species. In this study, we conducted the largest survey to date of the biomechanical properties of non-flight bee buzzes. We focused on defence buzzes as they can be induced experimentally and provide a common currency to compare among taxa. We analysed 15,000 buzzes produced by 306 individuals in 65 species and six families from Mexico, Scotland and Australia. We found a strong association between body size and the acceleration amplitude of bee buzzes. Comparison of genera that buzz-pollinate and those that do not suggests that buzz-pollinating bees produce vibrations with higher acceleration amplitude. We found no relationship between bee size and the fundamental frequency of defence buzzes. Although our results suggest that body size is a major determinant of the amplitude of non-flight vibrations, we also observed considerable variation in vibration properties among bees of equivalent size and even within individuals. Both morphology and behaviour thus affect the biomechanical properties of non-flight buzzes.

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.

The pollen virome: A review of pollen-associated viruses and consequences for plants and their interactions with pollinators

The movement of pollen grains from anthers to stigmas, often by insect pollinator vectors, is essential for plant reproduction. However, pollen is also a unique vehicle for viral spread. Pollen-associated plant viruses reside on the outside or inside of pollen grains, infect susceptible individuals through vertical or horizontal infection pathways, and can decrease plant fitness. These viruses are transferred with pollen between plants by pollinator vectors as they forage for floral resources; thus, pollen-associated viral spread is mediated by floral and pollen grain phenotypes and pollinator traits, much like pollination. Most of what is currently known about pollen-associated viruses was discovered through infection and transmission experiments in controlled settings, usually involving one virus and one plant species of agricultural or horticultural interest. In this review, we first provide an updated, comprehensive list of the recognized pollen-associated viruses. Then, we summarize virus, plant, pollinator vector, and landscape traits that can affect pollen-associated virus transmission, infection, and distribution. Next, we highlight the consequences of plant-pollinator-virus interactions that emerge in complex communities of co-flowering plants and pollinator vectors, such as pollen-associated virus spread between plant species and viral jumps from plant to pollinator hosts. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that bridges pollen biology, virology, and pollination biology.

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.

Assessing the toxicological interaction effects of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and chlorpyrifos on Bombus terrestris based on the combination index

In modern agricultural production, a variety of pesticides are widely used to protect crops against pests. However, extensive residues of these pesticides in the soil, water, and pollen have negatively affected the health of nontarget organisms, especially among pollinators such as bumblebees. As an important pollinator, the bumblebee plays a vital role in agricultural production and the maintenance of ecosystem diversity. Previous research has focused on the effects of a single pesticide on pollinating insects; however, the synergistic effects of multiple agents on bumblebees have been not studied in detail. Imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and chlorpyrifos are three of common pesticides known for severe effects on bumblebee health. It is still unknown what synergistic effects of these pesticides on pollinators. In our test, the individual and combined toxicities of chlorpyrifos, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid to bumblebees after 48 h of oral administration were documented by the equivalent linear equation method. Our results showed that the toxicity of each single pesticide exposure, from high to low, was imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and chlorpyrifos. All binary and ternary combinations showed synergistic or additive effects. Therefore, our research not only shows that the mixed toxicity of insecticides has a significant effect on bumblebees, but also provides scientific guidelines for assessing the safety risks to bumblebees of these three insecticide compounds. In assessing the risk to pollinating insects, the toxicity levels of laboratory experiments are much lower than the actual toxicity in the field.

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.

Buzz pollination

Pritchard and Vallejo-Marín introduce the process and evolution of buzz pollination.

Pollen dispensing schedules in buzz-pollinated plants: experimental comparison of species with contrasting floral morphologies

PREMISE

Plants can mitigate the fitness costs associated with pollen consumption by floral visitors by optimizing pollen release rates. In buzz-pollinated plants, bees apply vibrations to remove pollen from anthers with small pores. These poricidal anthers potentially function as mechanism staggering pollen release, but this has rarely been tested across plant species differing in anther morphology.

METHODS

In Solanum Section Androceras, three pairs of buzz-pollinated species have undergone independent evolutionary shifts between large- and small-flowers, which are accompanied by replicate changes in anther morphology. We used these shifts in anther morphology to characterize the association between anther morphology and pollen dispensing schedules. We applied simulated bee-like vibrations to anthers to elicit pollen release, and compared pollen dispensing schedules across anther morphologies. We also investigated how vibration velocity affects pollen release.

RESULTS

Replicate transitions in Solanum anther morphology are associated with consistent changes in pollen dispensing schedules. We found that small-flowered taxa release their pollen at higher rates than their large-flowered counterparts. Higher vibration velocities resulted in quicker pollen dispensing and more total pollen released. Finally, both the pollen dispensing rate and the amount of pollen released in the first vibration were negatively related to anther wall area, but we did not observe any association between pore size and pollen dispensing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide the first empirical demonstration that the pollen dispensing properties of poricidal anthers depend on both floral characteristics and bee vibration properties. Morphological modification of anthers could thus provide a mechanism to exploit different pollination environments.

Diversity and composition of pollen loads carried by pollinators are primarily driven by insect traits, not floral community characteristics

Flowering plants require conspecific pollen to reproduce but they often also receive heterospecific pollen, suggesting that pollinators carry mixed pollen loads. However, little is known about drivers of abundance, diversity or composition of pollen carried by pollinators. Are insect-carried pollen loads shaped by pollinator traits, or do they reflect available floral resources? We quantified pollen on 251 individual bees and 95 flies in a florally diverse community. We scored taxonomic order, sex, body size, hairiness and ecological specialization of pollinators, and recorded composition of available flowers. We used phylogenetically controlled model selection to compare relative influences of pollinator traits and floral resources on abundance, diversity and composition of insect-carried pollen. We tested congruence between composition of pollen loads and available flowers. Pollinator size, specialization and type (female bee, male bee, or fly) described pollen abundance, diversity and composition better than floral diversity. Pollen loads varied widely among insects (10-80,000,000 grains, 1-16 species). Pollen loads of male bees were smaller, but vastly more diverse than those of female bees, and equivalent in size but modestly more diverse than those of flies. Pollen load size and diversity were positively correlated with body size but negatively correlated with insect ecological specialization. These traits also drove variation in taxonomic and phylogenetic composition of insect-carried pollen loads, but composition was only weakly congruent with available floral resources. Qualities of pollinators best predict abundance and diversity of carried pollen indicating that functional composition of pollinator communities may be important to structuring heterospecific pollen transfer among plants.

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

Vibrations play an important role in insect behaviour. In bees, vibrations are used in a variety of contexts including communication, as a warning signal to deter predators and during pollen foraging. However, little is known about how the biomechanical properties of bee vibrations vary across multiple behaviours within a species. In this study, we compared the properties of vibrations produced by Bombus terrestris audax (Hymenoptera: Apidae) workers in three contexts: during flight, during defensive buzzing, and in floral vibrations produced during pollen foraging on two buzz-pollinated plants (Solanum, Solanaceae). Using laser vibrometry, we were able to obtain contactless measures of both the frequency and amplitude of the thoracic vibrations of bees across the three behaviours. Despite all three types of vibrations being produced by the same power flight muscles, we found clear differences in the mechanical properties of the vibrations produced in different contexts. Both floral and defensive buzzes had higher frequency and amplitude velocity, acceleration and displacement than the vibrations produced during flight. Floral vibrations had the highest frequency, amplitude velocity and acceleration of all the behaviours studied. Vibration amplitude, and in particular acceleration, of floral vibrations has been suggested as the key property for removing pollen from buzz-pollinated anthers. By increasing frequency and amplitude velocity and acceleration of their vibrations during vibratory pollen collection, foraging bees may be able to maximise pollen removal from flowers, although their foraging decisions are likely to be influenced by the presumably high cost of producing floral vibrations.

Sonicating bees demonstrate flexible pollen extraction without instrumental learning

Pollen collection is necessary for bee survival and important for flowering plant reproduction, yet if and how pollen extraction motor routines are modified with experience is largely unknown. Here, we used an automated reward and monitoring system to evaluate modification in a common pollen-extraction routine, floral sonication. Through a series of laboratory experiments with the bumblebee, Bombus impatiens, we examined whether variation in sonication frequency and acceleration is due to instrumental learning based on rewards, a fixed behavioral response to rewards, and/or a mechanical constraint. We first investigated whether bees could learn to adjust their sonication frequency in response to pollen rewards given only for specified frequency ranges and found no evidence of instrumental learning. However, we found that absence versus receipt of a pollen reward did lead to a predictable behavioral response, which depended on bee size. Finally, we found some evidence of mechanical constraints, in that flower mass affected sonication acceleration (but not frequency) through an interaction with bee size. In general, larger bees showed more flexibility in sonication frequency and acceleration, potentially reflecting a size-based constraint on the range over which smaller bees can modify frequency and acceleration. Overall, our results show that although bees did not display instrumental learning of sonication frequency, their sonication motor routine is nevertheless flexible.