Costs and benefits of alternative food handling tactics help explain facultative exploitation of pollination mutualisms
Abstract
AbstractMany mutualisms are taken advantage of by organisms that take rewards from their partners but provide no benefit in return. In the absence of traits that limit exploitation, facultative exploiters (partners that can either exploit or cooperate) are widely predicted by mutualism theory to choose an exploitative strategy, potentially threatening mutualism stability. However, it is unknown whether facultative exploiters choose to exploit, and, if so, make this choice because it is the most beneficial strategy for them. We explored these questions in a subalpine plant‐insect community in which individuals of several bumble bee species visit flowers both “legitimately” (entering via the flower opening, picking up and depositing pollen, and hence behaving mutualistically) and via nectar robbing (creating holes through corollas or using an existing hole, bypassing stigmas and anthers). We applied foraging theory to (1) quantify handling costs, benefits and foraging efficiencies incurred by three bumble bee species as they visited flowers legitimately or robbed nectar in cage experiments, and (2) determine whether these efficiencies matched the food handling tactics these bee species employed in the field. Relative efficiencies of legitimate and robbing tactics depended on the combination of bee and plant species. In some cases (Bombus mixtusvisitingCorydalis caseanaorMertensia ciliata), the robbing tactic permitted more efficient nectar removal. As both mutualism and foraging theory would predict, in the field,B. mixtusvisitingC. caseanawere observed more frequently robbing than foraging legitimately. However, forBombus flavifronsvisitingM. ciliata, the expectation from mutualism theory did not hold: legitimate visitation was the more efficient tactic. Legitimate visitation toM. ciliatawas in fact more frequently observed in free‐flyingB. flavifrons. Free‐flyingB. mixtusalso frequently visitedM. ciliataflowers legitimately. This may reflect lower nectar volumes in robbed than unrobbed flowers in the field. These results suggest that a foraging ecology perspective is informative to the choice of tactics facultative exploiters make. In contrast, the simple expectation that exploiters should always have an advantage, and hence could threaten mutualism persistence unless they are deterred or punished, may not be broadly applicable.
Local Knowledge Graph (10 entities)
Related Works
Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.
Foraging strategy predicts foraging economy in a facultative secondary nectar robber
Variation in nectar robbing over time, space, and species
Data from: Foraging strategy predicts foraging economy in a facultative secondary nectar robber
Competition for nectar resources does not affect bee foraging tactic constancy
Why are some plant—nectar robber interactions commensalisms?
Data from: Facilitated exploitation of pollination mutualisms: fitness consequences for plants
Beaver Management in Grazed Riparian Ecosystems
Colorado Ranch Management School (Part 7)
An Ecological Basis for Beaver Management in the Rocky Mountain Region
Cited By (25 times, 5 in Knowledge Hub)
The hole truth: why do bumble bees rob flowers more than once?
Elucidating the influence of a nectar yeast and nectar robbing on bumblebee foraging tactic constancy
The sensory and cognitive ecology of nectar robbing
Bumble bees are constant to nectar-robbing behaviour despite low switching costs
Competition for nectar resources does not affect bee foraging tactic constancy
References (44)
6 in Knowledge Hub, 38 external
