Foraging strategy predicts foraging economy in a facultative secondary nectar robber

The Hole Truth: Why Do Bumble Bees Rob Flowers More Than Once?

Primary nectar-robbers feed through holes they make in flowers, often bypassing the plant's reproductive organs in the process. In many robbed plants, multiple holes are made in a single flower. Why a flower should be robbed repeatedly is difficult to understand: a hole signals that a nectar forager has already fed, which would seem likely to predict low rewards. We tested three explanations for this pattern in Corydalis caseana (Fumariaceae), a bumble bee pollinated and robbed plant: (1) multiple holes appear only after all flowers have been robbed once; (2) individual foragers make multiple holes during single visits; and (3) it is more profitable for bees to rob older flowers, even if they have already been robbed. We tested these hypotheses from 2014 to 2016 in a Colorado, USA population using data on robbing rates over time, floral longevity, nectar accumulation in visited and unvisited flowers, and the accumulation of robbing holes across the life of flowers. Multiple holes were already appearing when two-thirds of flowers still lacked a single hole, allowing us to reject the first hypothesis. The second hypothesis cannot offer a full explanation for multiple robbing holes because 35% of additional holes appeared in flowers one or more days after the first hole was made. Repeated sampling of bagged and exposed inflorescences revealed that flowers filled at a constant rate and refilled completely after being drained. Consequently, young flowers are of consistently low value to foragers compared to older flowers even if they had previously been robbed, consistent with the third hypothesis. While further studies are needed, these results offer a simple explanation for the paradoxical clustering of nectar-robbing damage in this and possibly other plant species.

Effect of robbing intensity on reproductive success of Symphytum officinale (Boraginaceae)

The intervention of nectar robbers in plant pollination systems will cause some pollinators to modify their foraging behavior to act as secondary robbers, consequently adopting a mixed foraging strategy. The influence of nectar robbing on pollinator behavior may be affected by spatio-temporal difference of robbing intensity, and consequently, may have different effects on the pollination of host plants. However, whether and how the nectar robbing might influence pollinators under different robbing intensity still needs further investigation. In this study, Symphytum officinale was used to detect the effect of nectar robbers on pollinators under different robbing intensity as well as their effects on plant reproductive success. Six robbing levels and three bumblebees with mixed foraging behaviors were used to evaluate the effect of different robbing intensity on pollinator behavior, visitation rate, flower longevity and pollen deposition. Our results indicated that the robbing rate increased gradually with the proportion of robbed flowers, but which did not affect the frequency of legitimate visits. The increase of robbing rate promoted the corolla abscission, and then enhanced the self-pollen deposition, but which had no significant effect on cross-pollen deposition. These results indicate that the overall fitness of S. officinale was improved by combined self and cross-pollination modes when visited by both pollinators and nectar robbers simultaneously. Although nectar robbing is not uncommon, its consequences for pollination in the interaction web have not been well studied. Our results emphasize the significance of indirect impacts in mediating the adaptive outcomes of species interactions.

When cheating turns into a stabilizing mechanism of plant-pollinator communities

Mutualistic interactions, such as plant-mycorrhizal or plant-pollinator interactions, are widespread in ecological communities and frequently exploited by cheaters, species that profit from interactions without providing benefits in return. Cheating usually negatively affects the fitness of the individuals that are cheated on, but the effects of cheating at the community level remains poorly understood. Here, we describe 2 different kinds of cheating in mutualistic networks and use a generalized Lotka-Volterra model to show that they have very different consequences for the persistence of the community. Conservative cheating, where a species cheats on its mutualistic partners to escape the cost of mutualistic interactions, negatively affects community persistence. In contrast, innovative cheating occurs with species with whom legitimate interactions are not possible, because of a physiological or morphological barrier. Innovative cheating can enhance community persistence under some conditions: when cheaters have few mutualistic partners, cheat at low or intermediate frequency and the cost associated with mutualism is not too high. Under these conditions, the negative effects of cheating on partner persistence are overcompensated at the community level by the positive feedback loops that arise in diverse mutualistic communities. Using an empirical dataset of plant-bird interactions (hummingbirds and flowerpiercers), we found that observed cheating patterns are highly consistent with theoretical cheating patterns found to increase community persistence. This result suggests that the cheating patterns observed in nature could contribute to promote species coexistence in mutualistic communities, instead of necessarily destabilizing them.

The Sensory and Cognitive Ecology of Nectar Robbing

Animals foraging from flowers must assess their environment and make critical decisions about which patches, plants, and flowers to exploit to obtain limiting resources. The cognitive ecology of plant-pollinator interactions explores not only the complex nature of pollinator foraging behavior and decision making, but also how cognition shapes pollination and plant fitness. Floral visitors sometimes depart from what we think of as typical pollinator behavior and instead exploit floral resources by robbing nectar (bypassing the floral opening and instead consuming nectar through holes or perforations made in floral tissue). The impacts of nectar robbing on plant fitness are well-studied; however, there is considerably less understanding, from the animal’s perspective, about the cognitive processes underlying nectar robbing. Examining nectar robbing from the standpoint of animal cognition is important for understanding the evolution of this behavior and its ecological and evolutionary consequences. In this review, we draw on central concepts of foraging ecology and animal cognition to consider nectar robbing behavior either when individuals use robbing as their only foraging strategy or when they switch between robbing and legitimate foraging. We discuss sensory and cognitive biases, learning, and the role of a variable environment in making decisions about robbing vs. foraging legitimately. We also discuss ways in which an understanding of the cognitive processes involved in nectar robbing can address questions about how plant-robber interactions affect patterns of natural selection and floral evolution. We conclude by highlighting future research directions on the sensory and cognitive ecology of nectar robbing.

Nectar robbing in the trainbearers (Lesbia, Trochilidae)

Many flower visitors engage in floral larceny, a suite of so-called ’illegitimate’ visits in which foragers take nectar without providing pollination services. The data on prevalence of illegitimate visits among hummingbirds, as well as the total proportion of foraging and diet that such visits comprise is broadly lacking. Here, we report the occurrence of nectar larceny in the two currently recognized species of trainbearers and analyze the proportion of plant visits categorized by mode of interaction as: robbing, theft, and/or pollination. We augment our original field observations using a trove of data from citizen science databases. Although it is difficult to distinguish primary vs. secondary robbing and theft vs. pollination, we conservatively estimate that ca. 40% of the recorded nectar foraging visits involve nectar robbing. Males appear to engage in robbing marginally more than females, but further studies are necessary to confidently examine the multi-way interactions among sex, species, mode of visitation, and other factors. Our results also indicate that the suggested relationship between serrations on bill tomia and traits such as nectar robbing or territorial defense may be complicated. We discuss the significance of these findings in the context of recent developments in study of nectar foraging, larceny, and pollination from both avian and plant perspectives.

Costs and benefits of alternative food handling tactics help explain facultative exploitation of pollination mutualisms

Many mutualisms are taken advantage of by organisms that take rewards from their partners but provide no benefit in return. In the absence of traits that limit exploitation, facultative exploiters (partners that can either exploit or cooperate) are widely predicted by mutualism theory to choose an exploitative strategy, potentially threatening mutualism stability. However, it is unknown whether facultative exploiters choose to exploit, and, if so, make this choice because it is the most beneficial strategy for them. We explored these questions in a subalpine plant-insect community in which individuals of several bumble bee species visit flowers both "legitimately" (entering via the flower opening, picking up and depositing pollen, and hence behaving mutualistically) and via nectar robbing (creating holes through corollas or using an existing hole, bypassing stigmas and anthers). We applied foraging theory to (1) quantify handling costs, benefits and foraging efficiencies incurred by three bumble bee species as they visited flowers legitimately or robbed nectar in cage experiments, and (2) determine whether these efficiencies matched the food handling tactics these bee species employed in the field. Relative efficiencies of legitimate and robbing tactics depended on the combination of bee and plant species. In some cases (Bombus mixtus visiting Corydalis caseana or Mertensia ciliata), the robbing tactic permitted more efficient nectar removal. As both mutualism and foraging theory would predict, in the field, B. mixtus visiting C. caseana were observed more frequently robbing than foraging legitimately. However, for Bombus flavifrons visiting M. ciliata, the expectation from mutualism theory did not hold: legitimate visitation was the more efficient tactic. Legitimate visitation to M. ciliata was in fact more frequently observed in free-flying B. flavifrons. Free-flying B. mixtus also frequently visited M. ciliata flowers legitimately. This may reflect lower nectar volumes in robbed than unrobbed flowers in the field. These results suggest that a foraging ecology perspective is informative to the choice of tactics facultative exploiters make. In contrast, the simple expectation that exploiters should always have an advantage, and hence could threaten mutualism persistence unless they are deterred or punished, may not be broadly applicable.

The behavioral ecology of nectar robbing: why be tactic constant?

How do animals forage for variable food resources? For animals foraging at flowers, floral constancy has provided a framework for understanding why organisms visit some flowers while bypassing others. We extend this framework to the flower-handling tactics that visitors employ. Nectar robbers remove nectar through holes bitten in flowers, often without pollinating. Many foragers can switch between robbing and visiting flowers legitimately to gain access to nectar. We document that even though individuals can switch foraging tactics, they often do not. We explore whether individuals exhibit constancy to either robbing or visiting legitimately, which we term tactic constancy. We then extend hypotheses of floral constancy to understand when and why visitors exhibit tactic constancy and raise questions for future research.