4.7 Article

Patch selection by bumble bees navigating discontinuous landscapes

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-88394-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grant Program from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2018-33522-28707]
  2. USDA Agricultural Research Service
  3. DOE [DE-SC0014664]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pollen and nectar resources are unevenly distributed, leading bees to consider patch size and distance when making routing decisions. Bumble bees prefer large, nearby patches.
Pollen and nectar resources are unevenly distributed over space and bees must make routing decisions when navigating patchy resources. Determining the patch selection process used by bees is crucial to understanding bee foraging over discontinuous landscapes. To elucidate this process, we developed four distinct probability models of bee movement where the size and the distance to the patch determined the attractiveness of a patch. A field experiment with a center patch and four peripheral patches of two distinct sizes and distances from the center was set up in two configurations. Empirical transition probabilities from the center to each peripheral patch were obtained at two sites and two years. The best model was identified by comparing observed and predicted transition probabilities, where predicted values were obtained by incorporating the spatial dimensions of the field experiment into each model's mathematical expression. Bumble bees used both patch size and isolation distance when selecting a patch and could assess the total amount of resources available in a patch. Bumble bees prefer large, nearby patches. This information will facilitate the development of a predictive framework to the study of bee movement and of models that predict the movement of genetically engineered pollen in bee-pollinated crops.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available