4.4 Article

Seasonal Food Scarcity Prompts Long-Distance Foraging by a Wild Social Bee

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 191, 期 1, 页码 45-57

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/694843

关键词

bumblebee; dispersal; phenology; pollination; spatial ecology

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DEB-111007]
  2. NSF CAREER [DEB-0908661]
  3. Army Research Office [61662LS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Foraging is an essential process for mobile animals, and its optimization serves as a foundational theory in ecology and evolution; however, drivers of foraging are rarely investigated across landscapes and seasons. Using a common bumblebee species from the western United States (Bombus vosnesenskii), we ask whether seasonal decreases in food resources prompt changes in foraging behavior and space use. We employ a unique integration of population genetic tools and spatially explicit foraging models to estimate foraging distances and rates of patch visitation for wild bumblebee colonies across three study regions and two seasons. By mapping the locations of 669 wild-caught individual foragers, we find substantial variation in colony-level foraging distances, often exhibiting a 60-fold difference within a study region. Our analysis of visitation rates indicates that foragers display a preference for destination patches with high floral cover and forage significantly farther for these patches, but only in the summer, when landscape-level resources are low. Overall, these results indicate that an increasing proportion of long-distance foraging bouts take place in the summer. Because wild bees are pollinators, their foraging dynamics are of urgent concern, given the potential impacts of global change on their movement and services. The behavioral shift toward long-distance foraging with seasonal declines in food resources suggests a novel, phenologically directed approach to landscape-level pollinator conservation and greater consideration of late-season floral resources in pollinator habitat management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据