13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Male and female bees show large differences in floral preference

      research-article
      1 , 2 , * , 3 , 2
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Intraspecific variation in foraging niche can drive food web dynamics and ecosystem processes. In particular, male and female animals can exhibit different, often cascading, impacts on their interaction partners. Despite this, studies of plant-pollinator interaction networks have focused on the partitioning of the floral community between pollinator species, with little attention paid to intraspecific variation in plant preference between male and female bees. We designed a field study to evaluate the strength and prevalence of sexually dimorphic foraging, and particularly resource preferences, in bees.

          Study design

          We observed bees visiting flowers in semi-natural meadows in New Jersey, USA. To detect differences in flower use against a shared background of resource (flower) availability, we maximized the number of interactions observed within narrow spatio-temporal windows. To distinguish observed differences in bee use of flower species, which can reflect abundance patterns and sampling effects, from underlying differences in bee preferences, we analyzed our data with both a permutation-based null model and random effects models.

          Findings

          We found that the diets of male and female bees of the same species were often dissimilar as the diets of different species of bees. Furthermore, we demonstrate differences in preference between male and female bees. We show that intraspecific differences in preference can be robustly identified among hundreds of unique species-species interactions, without precisely quantifying resource availability, and despite high phenological turnover of both bees and plant bloom. Given the large differences in both flower use and preferences between male and female bees, ecological sex differences should be integrated into studies of bee demography, plant pollination, and coevolutionary relationships between flowers and insects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The role of resources and risks in regulating wild bee populations.

          Recent declines of bee species have led to great interest in preserving and promoting bee populations for agricultural and wild plant pollination. Many correlational studies have examined the indirect effects of factors such as landscape context and land management practices and found great variation in bee response. We focus here on the evidence for effects of direct factors (i.e., food resources, nesting resources, and incidental risks) regulating bee populations and then interpret varied responses to indirect factors through their species-specific and habitat-specific effects on direct factors. We find strong evidence for food resource availability regulating bee populations, but little clear evidence that other direct factors are commonly limiting. We recommend manipulative experiments to illuminate the effects of these different factors. We contend that much of the variation in impact from indirect factors, such as grazing, can be explained by the relationships between indirect factors and floral resource availability based on environmental circumstances.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Why network analysis is often disconnected from community ecology: A critique and an ecologist's guide

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              "Majoring" and "Minoring" by Foraging Bumblebees, Bombus Vagans: An Experimental Analysis

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                24 April 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 4
                : e0214909
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,New Jersey, United States of America
                [2 ] Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,New Jersey, United States of America
                [3 ] Department of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                University of New England, AUSTRALIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8479-9184
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0506-4794
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1271-2676
                Article
                PONE-D-18-36485
                10.1371/journal.pone.0214909
                6481915
                31017928
                a629f32f-0d70-4a77-9c7d-1b488bb438f9
                © 2019 Roswell et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 20 December 2018
                : 24 March 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 0, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000001, National Science Foundation;
                Award ID: NSFDGE1433187
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009171, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
                Award ID: Conservation Innovation Grant 2012
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by MR NSFDGE1433187 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. https://www.nsfgrfp.org// RW USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant Program 2012. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource conservation Services. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/cig/. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Hymenoptera
                Bees
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Plant Science
                Plant Anatomy
                Flowers
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Nutrition
                Diet
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Nutrition
                Diet
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Animal Behavior
                Foraging
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Animal Behavior
                Foraging
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Animal Behavior
                Foraging
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Population Biology
                Population Metrics
                Sex Ratio
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Mathematical Models
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Developmental Biology
                Morphogenesis
                Sexual Differentiation
                Sexual Dimorphism
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Plant Science
                Plant Anatomy
                Pollen
                Custom metadata
                All bee specimens are curated in the Winfree lab collection at Rutgers University, and the data used in this paper, along with R scripts used in data analysis and figure preparation, are available from the Dryad Digital Repository (doi: 10.5061/dryad.c3rr6q1).

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article