Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:10:29.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of the niche of two sympatric species of Bombus (Hymenoptera, Apidae) in southeastern Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Evandro Camillo  and
Carlos Alberto Garófalo
Evandro Camillo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirāo Preto-USPRibeirāo Preto, S.P.– Brasil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The sources of food and the width and overlap of the food niches of Bombus atratus and Bombus morio were determined by field observations and analysis of the pollen loads carried to the colonies by worker bees. The two species together utilized 50 flower species of which 26 were used by both. Solatium paniculatum (Solanaceae) and Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae) were the most frequently visited plants.

The food niche width and niche evenness for both species were similar. The correlation between niche width and niche evenness was non-significant showing that evenness does not depend on niche width. In addition, there was no correlation between niche width and overlap, i.e. overlap varied independently of niche width. A high overlap of food sources utilized by the two species was observed in September, October and November. This may be explained in one of two ways: (a) if B. atratus and B. morio compete for resources, competition would be more intense during those three months; (b) the convergency of both species to the same plant species (Solatium paniculatum and Psidium guajava) would only result in more intensive competition if resources were limiting. However, at that period of the year resources are abundant, therefore although the values of overlap were high, competition need not have occurred.

Keywords

BombusBrazilbumble-beescompetitionevennessfloweringfood sourcesniche widthoverlap
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1989 , pp. 81 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

Abrams, P. 1980. Some comments on measuring niche overlap. Ecology 61:44–49.Google Scholar
Alford, D. V. 1975. Bumblebees. Davis-Poynter, London, 352 pp.Google Scholar
Anasiewicz, A. & Warakomska, Z. 1977. Pollen food of the bumble-bees (Bombus Latr., Hymenoptera) and their association with the plant species in the Lublin region. Ekologia Polska 25:309–322.Google Scholar
Erdtman, G. 1969. Palinology. Pp. 149–208 in Preston, R. D. (ed.). Advances in botanical research. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Gallen, C. & Plowright, R. C. 1985. Contrasting movement patterns of nectar-collecting and pollen-collecting bumble bees (Bombus terricola) on fireweed (Chamaenerion angustifolium) inflorescences. Ecological Entomology 10:9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garófalo, C. A. 1976. Evoluçāo do comportamento social visualizada através da ecologia de Bombus morio (Hymenoptera, Bombinae). PhD thesis – Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto – USP. Brasil. 149 pp.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. & Koskela, H. 1977. Niche relations among dung inhabiting beetles. Oecologia 28:203–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinrich, B. 1975. Bee-flowers: a hypothesis on flowers variety and blooming times. Evolution 29:325–334.Google Scholar
Heinrich, B. 1976a. Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: Bumble bees. Ecology 57:874–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, B. 1976b. Flowering phenologies: Bog-Woodland and disturbed habitats. Ecology 57:890–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, B. 1979. Bumble-bee economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets. 245 pp.Google Scholar
Holt, R. D. 1987. On the relation between niche overlap and competition: the effect of incommensurable niche dimensions. Oikos 48:110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inouye, D. W. 1978. Resource partitioning in Bumble-bees. New York Entomological Society 8:253–254.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. A. 1986. Intraspecific resource partitioning in the bumble bees Bombus ternarius and Bombus pennsylvanicus. Ecology 67(1):133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, H. & Ranta, C. 1980. Habitat and food utilization in a subartic bumble-bee, community. Oikos 35:303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macarthur, R. H. & Levins, R. 1967. The limiting similarity convergence and divergence of coexisting species. American Naturalist 101:377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macior, L. W. 1968. Bombus (Hymenoptera, Apidae) queen foraging in relation to vernal pollination in Wisconsin. Ecology 49:20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macior, L. W. 1970. Pollination ecology of Dodecatheon amethystinum (Primulaceae). Bulletin Torrey Botanical Club 97:150–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macior, L. W. 1974. Pollination ecology of the front range of the Colorado Rocky Mountain. Melonderia 15:1–58.Google Scholar
Macior, L. W. 1978. Pollination ecology of vernal angiosperms. Oikos 30:452–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosquin, T. 1971. Competition for pollinators as a stimulus for the evolution of flowering time. Oikos 22:398–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekkarinen, A. 1984. Resource partitioning and coexistence in bumble-bees (Hymenoptera, Bombinae). Annalles Entomologici Fennici 50:97–107.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1966. An introduction to Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 286 pp.Google Scholar
Pleasants, J. M. 1980. Competition for bumblebee pollinators in Rocky Mountain plant communities. Ecology 61(6):1446–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plowright, R. C. & Laverty, T. M. 1984. The ecology and sociobiology of bumble bees. Annual Review of Entomology 29:175–199.Google Scholar
Ranta, E. & Lundberg, H. 1980. Resource partitioning in bumble-bees: the significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35:298–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, E. & Lundberg, H. 1981. Food niche analyses of bumble-bees: a comparison of three data collecting methods. Oikos 36:12–16.Google Scholar
Ranta, E., Lundberg, H. & Teras, I. 1981. Patterns of resource utilization in two fennoscandian bumble-bees communities. Oikos 36:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoener, T. W. 1982. The controversy over interspecific competition. American Scientist 70:586–595.Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1983. Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist 122:240–285.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York. 213 pp.Google Scholar
Teräs, I. 1976. Flowers visits of bumble-bees, Bombus Lat. (Hymenoptera, Apidae) during one summer. Annales Zoologici Fenici 13:200–232.Google Scholar
Teräs, I. 1985. Food plants and flower visits of bumblebees (Bombus: Hymenoptera, Apidae) in southern Finland. Acta Zoologica Fennica 179:1–120.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. D. 1980. Skewed flowering distributions and pollinator attraction. Ecology 61:572–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, R. 1973. Aspectos bionômicos de Exomalopsis aureopilosa e Bombus atratus incluindo consideraçāes sobre a evolucao do comportamento social (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). PhD thesis - Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirāo Preto - USP, Brasil. 172 pp.Google Scholar