IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0214909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Male and female bees show large differences in floral preference

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Roswell
  • Jonathan Dushoff
  • Rachael Winfree

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Roswell & Jonathan Dushoff & Rachael Winfree, 2019. "Male and female bees show large differences in floral preference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214909
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214909
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214909&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0214909?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Damien M Hicks & Pierre Ouvrard & Katherine C R Baldock & Mathilde Baude & Mark A Goddard & William E Kunin & Nadine Mitschunas & Jane Memmott & Helen Morse & Maria Nikolitsi & Lynne M Osgathorpe & Si, 2016. "Food for Pollinators: Quantifying the Nectar and Pollen Resources of Urban Flower Meadows," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-37, June.
    2. Juan C. Alonso & Iván Salgado & Carlos Palacín, 2016. "Thermal tolerance may cause sexual segregation in sexually dimorphic species living in hot environments," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(3), pages 717-724.
    3. Marguerite A. Butler & Stanley A. Sawyer & Jonathan B. Losos, 2007. "Sexual dimorphism and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7141), pages 202-205, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    2. Arianna Latini & Ilaria Papagni & Lorenzo Gatti & Patrizia De Rossi & Alessandro Campiotti & Germina Giagnacovo & Daniele Mirabile Gattia & Susanna Mariani, 2022. "Echium vulgare and Echium plantagineum : A Comparative Study to Evaluate Their Inclusion in Mediterranean Urban Green Roofs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Simon Hodge & Oliver Schweiger & Alexandra-Maria Klein & Simon G. Potts & Cecilia Costa & Matthias Albrecht & Joachim R. de Miranda & Marika Mand & Pilar De la Rúa & Maj Rundlöf & Eleanor Attridge & R, 2022. "Design and Planning of a Transdisciplinary Investigation into Farmland Pollinators: Rationale, Co-Design, and Lessons Learned," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-30, August.
    4. Carturan, Bruno S. & Siewe, Nourridine & Cobbold, Christina A. & Tyson, Rebecca C., 2023. "Bumble bee pollination and the wildflower/crop trade-off: When do wildflower enhancements improve crop yield?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    5. Gail Ann Langellotto & Andony Melathopoulos & Isabella Messer & Aaron Anderson & Nathan McClintock & Lucas Costner, 2018. "Garden Pollinators and the Potential for Ecosystem Service Flow to Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Evans, Luke C. & Sibly, Richard M. & Thorbek, Pernille & Sims, Ian & Oliver, Tom H. & Walters, Richard J., 2019. "Quantifying the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes for a grassland butterfly using individual-based models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 411(C).
    7. Frances S. Sivakoff & Scott P. Prajzner & Mary M. Gardiner, 2018. "Unique Bee Communities within Vacant Lots and Urban Farms Result from Variation in Surrounding Urbanization Intensity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    8. Joanne Lee Picknoll & Pieter Poot & Michael Renton, 2021. "A New Approach to Inform Restoration and Management Decisions for Sustainable Apiculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214909. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.