Learning to handle flowers increases pollen collection for bees but does not affect pollination success for plants

Abstract Cooperation and conflict are common in plant–pollinator interactions. Flowering plants often entice pollinators to visit by offering floral food rewards, thereby facilitating pollination. However, pollinators such as bees can learn to improve their collection of floral rewards (such as pollen), changing how they interact with the flower’s reproductive organs, which together could reduce pollination success. Consequently, complex flowers that slow pollinator learning might benefit the plant. Yet how pollinator learning and flower complexity interact to affect pollination success is unknown. We therefore asked how differences in complexity of 4 flower types (Phacelia campanularia, Exacum affine, Solanum elaeagnifolium, and Erythranthe guttata) affected learning by pollen-foraging generalist bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) and how learning affected pollen collection and pollen deposition on these flowers. We found that bees generally learned how to efficiently handle more complex flower types more slowly. Bees that required more visits to become efficient foragers collected less pollen, with no effect on pollen deposition. Except for the simplest flower type, learning also involved development of motor routines unique to each flower type. Experienced bees overall collected more pollen, but individual differences in motor routines did not affect pollen collection. Conversely, individual differences in motor routines affected pollen deposition, but there was no overall effect of experience. Thus, even though learning overall benefits the bee, it does not alter female (and potentially male) fitness benefits for the plant. We discuss potential reasons for these patterns and consequences for bee behavior and flower evolution.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Behavioral Ecology
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arae083
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Plant and animal studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.09
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Learning to handle flowers increases pollen collection for bees but does not affect pollination success for plants

Tia‐Lynn Ashman, Maggie M. Mayberry, Avery L. Russell, Rachel V. Wilkins et al.
3 citations
Behavioral Ecology
Plant and animal studies
3.09
article

Learning to handle flowers increases pollen collection for bees but does not affect pollination success for plants

Tia‐Lynn Ashman, Maggie M. Mayberry, Avery L. Russell, Rachel V. Wilkins, Dalton M. McCart, Annaliese N. Novinger, Katherine C. Naumer, H. David Muse
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract Cooperation and conflict are common in plant–pollinator interactions. Flowering plants often entice pollinators to visit by offering floral food rewards, thereby facilitating pollination. However, pollinators such as bees can learn to improve their collection of floral rewards (such as pollen), changing how they interact with the flower’s reproductive organs, which together could reduce pollination success. Consequently, complex flowers that slow pollinator learning might benefit the plant. Yet how pollinator learning and flower complexity interact to affect pollination success is unknown. We therefore asked how differences in complexity of 4 flower types (Phacelia campanularia, Exacum affine, Solanum elaeagnifolium, and Erythranthe guttata) affected learning by pollen-foraging generalist bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) and how learning affected pollen collection and pollen deposition on these flowers. We found that bees generally learned how to efficiently handle more complex flower types more slowly. Bees that required more visits to become efficient foragers collected less pollen, with no effect on pollen deposition. Except for the simplest flower type, learning also involved development of motor routines unique to each flower type. Experienced bees overall collected more pollen, but individual differences in motor routines did not affect pollen collection. Conversely, individual differences in motor routines affected pollen deposition, but there was no overall effect of experience. Thus, even though learning overall benefits the bee, it does not alter female (and potentially male) fitness benefits for the plant. We discuss potential reasons for these patterns and consequences for bee behavior and flower evolution.

Behavioral EcologyVol. 35(6)
Missouri State University (US), University of Pittsburgh (US), Kansas State Department of Education (US), Kansas State University (US), Kansas Department of Health and Environment (US), Kansas Health Institute (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Plant and animal studies
3.09
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.