title: Contrasting responses of bumble bees to feeding conspecifics on their familiar and unfamiliar flowers.
abstract: Animals exploiting their familiar food items often avoid spatio-temporal aggregation with others by avoiding scents, less rewarding areas or visual contacts, thereby minimizing competition or interference when resources are replenished slowly in patches. When animals are searching or assessing available food sources, however, they may benefit from reducing sampling costs by following others at food sites. Therefore, animals may adjust their responses to others depending on their familiarity with foraging situations. Here, we conducted field experiments to test whether nectar-collecting bumble bees make this adjustment. We allowed free-foraging bees to choose between two inflorescences, one occupied by a conspecific bee and another unoccupied. When bees were presented with flowers of a familiar type, they avoided occupied inflorescences. In contrast, bees visited an occupied inflorescence when the flower type was unfamiliar. To our knowledge, this is the first report suggesting that animals adjust their responses to feeding conspecifics depending on their familiarity with food sources. Such behavioural flexibilities should allow foragers to both explore and exploit their environments efficiently.
authors: Integrative Environmental Sciences, Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba City, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan. kawa@pe.ies.life.tsukuba.ac.jp
authors: Lina G
authors: LG
authors: Kawaguchi
authors: Kazuharu
authors: K
authors: Ohashi
authors: Yukihiko
authors: Y
authors: Toquenaga
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001516:Bees / Q000502:physiology*; D005247:Feeding Behavior / Q000502:physiology*; D035264:Flowers
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Mar;14(3):102-106
references: 10322509
references: Anim Behav. 2001 Jan;61(1):217-229
references: 11170711
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 29;357(1427):1549-57
references: 12495512
references: Science. 2004 Jul 23;305(5683):487-91
references: 15273386
references: Curr Biol. 2005 Jun 21;15(12):R447-8
references: 15964260
references: Curr Biol. 2005 Nov 8;15(21):R869-71
references: 16271856
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Apr;20(4):187-93
references: 16701367
references: Biol Lett. 2005 Dec 22;1(4):504-7
references: 17148244
references: Oecologia. 1997 Apr;110(3):432-439
references: 28307233
references: Oecologia. 1978 Jan;33(1):71-86
references: 28309267
references: Oecologia. 1982 Sep;54(3):326-336
references: 28309956
references: Oecologia. 1986 Jul;69(4):567-570
references: 28311617
references: Oecologia. 1987 Jan;71(2):295-300
references: 28312259
references: Oecologia. 1992 Jan;89(1):113-117
references: 28313402
references: Anim Behav. 1998 Jan;55(1):199-206
references: 9480686