蜜蜂觅花过程中的偏好与转换之间的关系

IF 1.9 2区 生物学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Daniel R. Papaj, Avery L. Russell
{"title":"蜜蜂觅花过程中的偏好与转换之间的关系","authors":"Daniel R. Papaj, Avery L. Russell","doi":"10.1007/s00265-024-03456-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>It seems self-evident that generalist foragers switch more between resources than specialists but despite diverse ecological and evolutionary implications, how variation in switching relates to variation in preference warrants additional study. Here we tested predictions based on a simple probability model, using flower-foraging bees as a model system. In laboratory assays, we presented bumble bee (<i>Bombus impatiens</i>) workers with flowers of two species, <i>Tecoma stans</i> and <i>T. alata</i>, from which they could collect nectar and/or pollen. We quantified landing preference and occurrence of switching between species in successive visits. Bees varied greatly in floral preference. Almost half showed statistically significant preferences for one or the other species, while the rest were generalists in preference. As expected, generalists using both flower species switched more in successive visits than bees that were more specialized, a pattern fit to a quadratic function. However, generalist individuals switched more than expected based on null expectation. A Modified Jacob’s Index (MJI) of switching was significantly positively correlated with degree of preference: generalist bees had more negative MJI’s than specialist bees, indicating that even after the expected statistical effect of preference on switching was accounted for, they switched more than specialists. A simulation ruled out the possibility that the pattern was due to bias in MJI. Generalist-specialist differences in which food was collected (nectar versus pollen) were also ruled out. We offer possible explanations for our observed pattern and advocate consideration of preference and switching throughout behavioral ecology.</p>","PeriodicalId":8881,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The relationship between preference and switching in flower foraging by bees\",\"authors\":\"Daniel R. Papaj, Avery L. Russell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00265-024-03456-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>It seems self-evident that generalist foragers switch more between resources than specialists but despite diverse ecological and evolutionary implications, how variation in switching relates to variation in preference warrants additional study. Here we tested predictions based on a simple probability model, using flower-foraging bees as a model system. In laboratory assays, we presented bumble bee (<i>Bombus impatiens</i>) workers with flowers of two species, <i>Tecoma stans</i> and <i>T. alata</i>, from which they could collect nectar and/or pollen. We quantified landing preference and occurrence of switching between species in successive visits. Bees varied greatly in floral preference. Almost half showed statistically significant preferences for one or the other species, while the rest were generalists in preference. As expected, generalists using both flower species switched more in successive visits than bees that were more specialized, a pattern fit to a quadratic function. However, generalist individuals switched more than expected based on null expectation. A Modified Jacob’s Index (MJI) of switching was significantly positively correlated with degree of preference: generalist bees had more negative MJI’s than specialist bees, indicating that even after the expected statistical effect of preference on switching was accounted for, they switched more than specialists. A simulation ruled out the possibility that the pattern was due to bias in MJI. Generalist-specialist differences in which food was collected (nectar versus pollen) were also ruled out. We offer possible explanations for our observed pattern and advocate consideration of preference and switching throughout behavioral ecology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03456-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03456-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通才觅食者比专才觅食者在不同资源之间的转换更多,这似乎是不言而喻的,但尽管存在多种生态和进化影响,转换的变异与偏好的变异之间的关系如何还需要进一步研究。在这里,我们以觅食花卉的蜜蜂为模型系统,检验了基于简单概率模型的预测。在实验室试验中,我们向熊蜂(Bombus impatiens)工蜂展示了两种花(Tecoma stans 和 T. alata),它们可以从中采集花蜜和/或花粉。我们对蜜蜂的着陆偏好以及在连续访问中切换花种的情况进行了量化。蜜蜂对花的偏好差异很大。据统计,近一半的蜜蜂表现出对一种或另一种物种的偏好,而其余的蜜蜂则是偏好通才。不出所料,使用两种花卉的通才比专一性更强的蜜蜂在连续访问中转换的次数更多,这种模式符合二次函数。然而,基于空期望,通才个体的转换比预期的要多。切换的修正雅各布指数(MJI)与偏好程度呈显著的正相关:通才蜂比专才蜂有更多的负MJI,这表明即使考虑了偏好对切换的预期统计影响,通才蜂的切换也比专才蜂多。模拟排除了这种模式是由于 MJI 偏差造成的可能性。此外,还排除了普通蜜蜂与特种蜜蜂在采集食物(花蜜还是花粉)上的差异。我们为观察到的模式提供了可能的解释,并提倡在整个行为生态学中考虑偏好和转换。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The relationship between preference and switching in flower foraging by bees

The relationship between preference and switching in flower foraging by bees

It seems self-evident that generalist foragers switch more between resources than specialists but despite diverse ecological and evolutionary implications, how variation in switching relates to variation in preference warrants additional study. Here we tested predictions based on a simple probability model, using flower-foraging bees as a model system. In laboratory assays, we presented bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) workers with flowers of two species, Tecoma stans and T. alata, from which they could collect nectar and/or pollen. We quantified landing preference and occurrence of switching between species in successive visits. Bees varied greatly in floral preference. Almost half showed statistically significant preferences for one or the other species, while the rest were generalists in preference. As expected, generalists using both flower species switched more in successive visits than bees that were more specialized, a pattern fit to a quadratic function. However, generalist individuals switched more than expected based on null expectation. A Modified Jacob’s Index (MJI) of switching was significantly positively correlated with degree of preference: generalist bees had more negative MJI’s than specialist bees, indicating that even after the expected statistical effect of preference on switching was accounted for, they switched more than specialists. A simulation ruled out the possibility that the pattern was due to bias in MJI. Generalist-specialist differences in which food was collected (nectar versus pollen) were also ruled out. We offer possible explanations for our observed pattern and advocate consideration of preference and switching throughout behavioral ecology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal publishes reviews, original contributions and commentaries dealing with quantitative empirical and theoretical studies in the analysis of animal behavior at the level of the individual, group, population, community, and species.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信