The advantage of short tongues in bumble bees (Bombus) - Analyses of species distributions according to flower corolla depth, and of working speeds on white clover

Canadian Entomologist

Volumn 129, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 51-59

  Plowright, C M S ^a   Plowright, R C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOMBUS; APIDAE; FABACEAE; HYMENOPTERA; TRIFOLIUM REPENS;

BUMBLEBEE; COROLLA DEPTH; TONGUE LENGTH; WHITE CLOVER;

EID: 0030616988     PISSN: 0008347X     EISSN: 19183240     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4039/Ent12951-1     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Baker, R.J., and R.A. Nelder. 1978. The GLIM System, Release 3: Generalised Linear Interactive Modelling. Numerical Algorithms Group, Oxford, UK.
2. Barrow, D.A., and R.S. Pickard. 1984. Size-related selection of food plants by bumblebees. Ecological Entomology 9: 369-373.
3. Benedek, P. 1973. Relationship between the tripping rate and tongue length of lucerne pollinated wild bees (Hym. Apoidea). Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 73: 113-116.
4. Brian, A.D. 1957. Differences in the flowers visited by four species of bumble bees and their causes. Journal of Animal Ecology 26: 71-98.
5. Dukas, R., and A. Shmida. 1989. Correlation between the color, size and shape of Israeli crucifer flowers and relationships to pollinators. Oikos 54: 281-286.
6. Galen, C., and S. Blau. 1988. Caste-specific patterns of flower visitation in bumble bees (Bombus kirbyellus) collecting nectar from Polemonium viscosum. Ecological Entomology 13: 11-17.
7. Harder, L.D. 1982. Measurement and estimation of functional proboscis length in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 60: 1073-1079.
8. _ 1983. Flower handling efficiency of bumble bees: Morphological aspects of probing time. Oecologia (Berlin) 57: 274-280.
9. _ 1985. Morphology as a predictor of flower choice by bumblebees. Ecology 66: 198-210.
10. _ 1986. Effects of nectar concentration and flower depth on flower handling efficiency of bumble bees. Oecologia (Berlin) 69: 309-315.
11. Heinrich, B. 1976. Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: Bumblebees. Ecology 57: 874-889.
12. Inouye, D.W. 1980. The effect of proboscis and corolla tube lengths on patterns and rates of flower visitation by bumblebees. Oecologia (Berlin) 45: 197-201.
13. Inouye, D.W., and G.H. Pyke. 1988. Pollination biology in the Snowy Mountains of Australia: Comparisons with montane Colorado, USA. Australian Journal of Ecology 13: 191-210.
14. Jennersten, O., L. Berg, and C. Lehman. 1988. Phenological differences in pollinator visitation, pollen deposition and seed set in the sticky catchfly, Viscaria vulgaris. Journal of Ecology 76: 1111-1132.
15. Kugler, H. 1940. Die Bestaubung von Blumen durch Furchenbienen (Halictus Latr.). Planta 30: 780-799.
16. Morse, D.H. 1978. Size-related foraging differences of bumble bee workers. Ecological Entomology 3: 189-192.
17. _ 1979. Foraging rate, foraging position, and worker size in bumble bee workers. Proceedings of the IVth International Symposium on Pollination. Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Special Miscellaneous Publication 1: 447-452.
18. Plowright, R.C. 1987. Corolla depth and nectar concentration: An experimental study. Canadian Journal of Botany 65: 1011-1013.
19. Plowright, R.C., J.D. Thomson, L.P. Lefkovitch, and C.M.S. Plowright. 1993. An experimental study of the effect of colony resource manipulation on foraging for pollen by worker bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 1393-1396.
20. Ranta, E. 1983. Foraging differences in bumblebees. Annales Zoologici Fennici 49: 17-22.
21. Ranta, E., and H. Lundberg. 1980. Resource partitioning in bumblebees: The significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35: 298-302.