Detecting the effects of introduced species: A case study of competition between Apis and Bombus

Oikos

Volumn 114, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 407-418

  Thomson, Diane M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Joint Science Department   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEE; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); FORAGING BEHAVIOR; HONEYBEE; INTRODUCED SPECIES; NICHE OVERLAP; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RESOURCE SCARCITY;

APIS; APIS MELLIFERA; APOIDEA; BOMBUS (GENUS);

EID: 33845605967     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14604.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aarssen, L. W. and Keogh., T. 2002. Conundrums of competitive ability in plants: what to measure? - Oikos 96: 531-542.
2. Bowers, M. A. 1985. Experimental analyses of competition between two species of bumble bees. - Oecologia 67: 224-230.
3. Butz Huryn, V. M. 1997. Ecological impacts of introduced honey bees. - Q. Rev. Biol. 72: 275-297.
4. Byers, J. E., Reichard, S., Randall, J. M. et al. 2002. Directing research to reduce the impacts of nonindigenous species. - Conserv. Biol. 16: 630-640.
5. Cade, B. S. and Guo, Q. 2000. Estimating effects of constraints on plant performance with regression quantiles. - Oikos 91: 245-254.
6. Cade, B. S., Terrell, J. W. and Schroeder, R. L. 1999. Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles. - Ecology 80: 311-323.
7. Christian, C. E. 2001. Consequences of a biological invasion reveal the importance of mutualism for plant communities. - Nature 413: 635-639.
8. Corbet, S. A., Saville, N. M., Fussell, M. et al. 1995. The competition box: a graphical aid to forecasting pollinator performance. - J. Appl. Ecol. 32: 707-719.
9. Devillers, J. and PhamDelegue, M. (eds) 2002. Honey bees: estimating the environmental impacts of chemicals. - Taylor and Francis Ltd.
10. Eickwort, G. C. and Ginsberg, H. S. 1980. Foraging and mating behavior in Apoidea. - Annu. Rev. Entomol. 25: 421-426.
11. Garvey, J. E., Marschall, E. A. and Wright, R. A. 1998. From star charts to stoneflies: detecting relationships in continuous bivariate data. - Ecology 79: 442-447.
12. Ginsberg, H. S. 1983. Foraging ecology of bees in an old field. - Ecology 64: 165-175.
13. Gotelli, N. J. and Graves, G. R. 1996. Null models in ecology. - Smithsonian Inst. Press
14. Goulson, D. 2003. Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34: 1-26.
15. Harder, L. D. 1985. Morphology as a predictor of flower choice by bumble bees. - Ecology 66: 198-210.
16. Heinrich, B. 1976. Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumble bees. - Ecology 57: 874-889.
17. Inouye, D. W. 1977. Resource partitioning in bumble bees. - J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 85: 253-254.
18. Inouye, D. W. 1978. Resource partitioning in bumble bees: experimental studies of foraging behavior. - Ecology 59: 672-678.
19. Kato, M., Shibata, A., Yasui, T. et al. 1999. Impact of introduced honeybees, Apis mellifera , upon native bee communities in the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands. - Res. Popul. Ecol. 41: 217-228.
20. Kolar, C. S. and Lodge, D. M. 2001. Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 199-204.
21. Levine, J. M. and D'Antonio, C. M. 2003. Forecasting biological invasions, with increasing international trade. - Conserv. Biol. 17: 322-326.
22. Moller, H. 1996. Lessons for invasion theory from social insects. - Biol. Conserv. 78: 125-142.
23. Ness, J. H. and Bronstein, I. L. 2004. The effects of invasive ants on prospective ant mutualists. - Biol. Invas. 6: 445-461.
24. Parker, I. M. and Reichard, S. H. 1998. Critical issues in invasion biology for conservation science. - In: Fiedler, P. L. and Kareiva, P. M. (eds), Conservation biology. Chapman and Hall, Inc, pp. 283-305.
25. Parker, I. M., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M. et al. 1999. Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. - Biol. Invas. 1: 3-19.
26. Ranta, E. and Lundberg, H. 1980. Resource partitioning in bumble bees: the significance of differences in proboscis length. - Oikos 35: 298-302.
27. Reichard, S. H. and Hamilton, C. W. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. - Conserv. Biol. 11: 193-203.
28. Rejmanek, M. and Richardson, D. M. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? - Ecology 77: 1655-1661.
29. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1987. Habitat selection as a source of biological diversity. - Evol. Ecol. 1: 315-330.
30. Sanders, N. J., Gotelli, N. J., Heller, N. E. et al. 2003. Community disassembly by an invasive species. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100: 2474-2477.
31. Schaffer, W. M., Jensen, D. B., Hobbs, D. E. et al. 1979. Competition, foraging energetics and the cost of sociality in 3 species of bees. - Ecology 60: 976-987.
32. Schaffer, W. M., Zeh, D. W., Buchmann, S. L. et al. 1983. Competition for nectar between introduced honey bees (Apis mellifera ) and native North American bees and ants. - Ecology 64: 564-577.
33. Schluter, D. 2000. Ecological character displacement in adaptive radiation. - Am. Nat. 156: S4-S16.
34. Seeley, T. D. 1995. The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honey bee colonies. - Harvard Univ. Press.
35. Shea, K. and Chesson, P. 2002. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. - Trends Ecol Evol. 14: 170-176.
36. Simberloff, D. 1986. Introduced insects: a biogeographic and systematic perspective. - In: Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A. (eds), Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, pp. 3-26.
37. Suarez, A. V. and Case, T. J. 2002. Bottom-up effects on persistence of a specialist predator: ant invasions and horned lizards. - Ecol. Appl. 12: 291-298.
38. Terrell, J. W., Cade, B. S., Carpenter, J. et al. 1996. Modeling stream fish habitat limitations from wedge-shaped patterns of variation in standing stock. - Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 125: 104-117.
39. Thomson, D. 2004. Competitive interactions between the invasive European honey bee and native bumble bees. - Ecology 85: 458-470.
40. Thomson, J. D., Weiblen, G., Thomson, B. A. et al. 1996. Untangling multiple factors in spatial distributions: lilies, gophers and rocks. - Ecology 77: 1698-1715.
41. Thorp, R. W. 1996. Resource overlap among native and introduced bees in California. - In: Matheson, A., Buchmann, S. and Westrich, P. (eds), The conservation of bees. Academic Press, pp. 143-151.
42. Thorp, R. W., Wenner, A. M. and Barthell, J. F. 1994. Flowers visited by honey bees and native bees on Santa Cruz Island. - In: Halvorsen, W. L. and Maender, G. J. (eds), The fourth California Islands symposium: update on the status of resources. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist., Santa Barbara, CA, pp. 351-365.
43. Wills, R. T., Lyons, M. N. and Bell, D. T. 1990. The European honey bee in western Australian kwongan: foraging preferences and some implications for management. - Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 16: 167-176.