Pollen carryover, pollinator movement, and spatial context impact the delivery of pollination services in apple orchards.

Assessing the relative contributions of different pollinator taxa to pollination services is a central task in both basic eco-evolutionary research and applied conservation and agriculture. To that end, many studies have quantified single-visit pollen deposition and visitation frequency, which together determine a pollinator species' rate of conspecific pollen delivery. However, for plant species that require or benefit from outcrossing, pollination service quality further depends upon the ratio of outcross to self-pollen deposited, which is determined by two additional pollinator traits: pollen carryover and movement patterns among genetically compatible plant individuals. Here, we compare the pollination capacities of managed honey bees, native bumble bees, and native mining bees in apple-a varietally self-incompatible commercial crop-when pollen carryover and pollinator movement patterns are considered. We constructed simulation models of outcross pollen deposition parameterized using empirically measured single-visit pollen deposition, visitation frequency, and probabilities of intertree movement exhibited by each pollinator type, as well as pollen carryover patterns simulated based on parameters reported in the literature. In these models, we also explicitly specified the spatial relationships among cross-compatible trees based on field-realistic orchard layout schemes. We found that estimated pollination service delivery was considerably reduced for all pollinator types when pollen carryover and pollinator movement patterns were considered, as compared to when only single-visit pollen deposition and visitation frequency were considered. We also found that the performance of different pollinator types varied greatly across simulated orchard layout schemes and pollen carryover scenarios, including one instance where bumble and mining bees reversed their relative rankings. In all simulations, native bumble and mining bees outperformed managed honey bees in terms of both outcross pollen delivery per unit time and per flower visited, with disparities being greatest under scenarios of low pollen carryover. We demonstrate the degree to which pollination studies may reach inaccurate conclusions regarding pollination service delivery when pollen carryover and pollinator movement patterns are ignored. Our finding of the strong context dependence of pollination efficiency, even within a single plant-pollinator taxon pair, cautions that future studies in both basic and applied pollination biology should explicitly consider the ecological context in which pollination interactions take place.

Interaction of memory systems is controlled by context in both food-storing and non-storing birds.

Animals and humans have multiple memory systems. While both black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) and dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis) are under selective pressure to remember reliable long-term spatial locations (habit memory), chickadees must additionally quickly form and rapidly update spatial memory for unique cache sites (one-trial memory). We conducted a series of three experiments in which we assessed the degree to which habit and one-trial memory were expressed in both species as a function of training context. In Experiment 1, birds failed to demonstrate habits on probe trials after being trained in the context of a biased Match-to-Sample task in which the same high-frequency target was always correct. In Experiment 2, habit strongly controlled performance when habits were learned as Discriminations, defining a specific training context. In Experiment 3, context no longer defined when to express habits and habit and one-trial memory competed for control of behavior. Across all experiments, birds preferentially used the memory system at test that was consistent with the context in which it was acquired. Although the memory adaptations that allow chickadees to successfully recover cached food might predispose them to favor one-trial memory, we found no species differences in the weighting of habit and one-trial memory. In the experiments here, context was a powerful factor controlling the interaction of memory systems.

Imidacloprid impairs performance on a model flower handling task in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens).

Bumblebees exposed to neonicotinoid pesticides collect less pollen on foraging trips. Exposed bumblebees are also slower to learn to handle flowers, which may account for reduced pollen collection. It is unclear, however, why neonicotinoid exposure slows learning to handle flowers. We investigated the effect of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, on bumblebee motor learning using a lab model of flower handling. Bumblebees learned to invert inside a narrow tube and lift a petal-shaped barrier to reach a reward chamber. Imidacloprid-exposed bumblebees showed a dose-dependent delay to solve the task, which resulted from reduced switching between behavioural strategies and a subsequent delay in use of the successful strategy. This effect was consistent in colonies exposed at 10 but not 2.6 ppb, suggesting a variable effect on individuals at lower doses. These results help to explain why exposed bumblebees are slow to learn to handle flowers and collect less pollen on foraging trips.

Imidacloprid slows the development of preference for rewarding food sources in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens).

Bee pollination is economically and ecologically vital and recent declines in bee populations are therefore a concern. One possible cause of bee declines is pesticide use. Bumblebees exposed to imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, have been shown to be less efficient foragers and collect less pollen on foraging trips than unexposed bees. We investigated whether bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) chronically exposed to imidacloprid at field-realistic levels of 2.6 and 10 ppb showed learning deficits that could affect foraging. Bumblebees were tested for their ability to associate flower colour with reward value in a simulated foraging environment. Bumblebees completed 10 foraging trips in which they collected sucrose solution from artificial flowers that varied in sucrose concentration. The reward quality of each artificial flower was predicted by corolla colour. Unexposed bumblebees acquired a preference for feeding on the most rewarding flower colour on the second foraging trip, while bumblebees exposed at 2.6 and 10 ppb did not until their third and fifth trip, respectively. The delay in preference acquisition in exposed bumblebees may be due to reduced flower sampling and shorter foraging trips. These results show that bumblebees exposed to imidacloprid are slow to learn the reward value of flowers and this may explain previously observed foraging inefficiencies associated with pesticide exposure.

Serial reversal learning in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens).

Bumblebees are capable of rapidly learning discriminations, but flexibility in bumblebee learning is less well understood. We tested bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) on a serial reversal learning task. A serial reversal task requires learning of an initial discrimination between two differentially rewarded stimuli, followed by multiple reversals of the reward contingency between stimuli. A reduction in errors with repeated reversals in a serial reversal task is an indicator of behavioural flexibility. Bees were housed in a large indoor environment and tested during foraging flights. Testing free-flying bees allowed for large numbers of trials and reversals. All bees were trained to perform a simultaneous discrimination between two colours for a nectar reward, followed by nine reversals of this discrimination. Results showed that bumblebees reduced errors and improved their performance across successive reversals. A reduction in perseverative errors was the major cause of the improvement in performance. Bees showed a slight increase in error rate in their final trials, perhaps as a consequence of increasing proactive interference, but proactive interference may also have contributed to the overall improvement in performance across reversals. Bumblebees are thus capable of behavioural flexibility comparable to that of other animals and may use proactive interference as a mechanism of behavioural flexibility in varying environments.

Field agrochemical exposure impacts locomotor activity in wild bumblebees.

Agricultural intensification has been identified as one of the key causes of global insect biodiversity losses. These losses have been further linked to the widespread use of agrochemicals associated with modern agricultural practices. Many of these chemicals are known to have negative sublethal effects on commercial pollinators, such as managed honeybees and bumblebees, but less is known about the impacts on wild bees. Laboratory-based studies with commercial pollinators have consistently shown that pesticide exposure can impact bee behavior, with cascading effects on foraging performance, reproductive success, and pollination services. However, these studies typically assess only one chemical, neglecting the complexity of real-world exposure to multiple agrochemicals and other stressors. In the summer of 2020, we collected wild-foraging workers of the common eastern bumblebee, Bombus impatiens, from five squash (Cucurbita) agricultural sites (organic and conventional farms), selected to represent a range of agrochemical, including neonicotinoid insecticide, use. For each bee, we measured two behaviors relevant to foraging success and previously shown to be impacted by pesticide exposure: sucrose responsiveness and locomotor activity. Following behavioral testing, we used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) chemical analysis to detect and quantify the presence of 92 agrochemicals in each bumblebee. Bees collected from our sites did not vary in pesticide exposure as expected. While we found a limited occurrence of neonicotinoids, two fungicides (azoxystrobin and difenoconazole) were detected at all sites, and the pesticide synergist piperonyl butoxide (PBO) was present in all 123 bees. We found that bumblebees that contained higher levels of PBO were less active, and this effect was stronger for larger bumblebee workers. While PBO is unlikely to be the direct cause of the reduction in bee activity, it could be an indicator of exposure to pyrethroids and/or other insecticides that we were unable to directly quantify, but which PBO is frequently tank-mixed with during pesticide applications on crops. We did not find a relationship between agrochemical exposure and bumblebee sucrose responsiveness. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of a sublethal behavioral impact of agrochemical exposure on wild-foraging bees.

Contrasting styles in cognition and behaviour in bumblebees and honeybees.

Bumblebees and honeybees have been the subjects of a great deal of recent research in animal cognition. Many of the major topics in cognition, including memory, attention, concept learning, numerosity, spatial cognition, timing, social learning, and metacognition have been examined in bumblebees, honeybees, or both. Although bumblebees and honeybees are very closely related, they also differ in important ways, including social organization, development, and foraging behaviour. We examine whether differences between bumblebees and honeybees in cognitive processes are related to differences in their natural history and behaviour. There are differences in some cognitive traits, such as serial reversal learning and matching-to-sample, that appear related to differences between bumblebees and honeybees in foraging and social behaviour. Other cognitive processes, such as numerosity, appear to be very similar. Despite the wealth of information that is available on some aspects of bumblebee and honeybee cognition and behaviour, there are relatively few instances, however, in which adequate data exist to make direct comparisons. We highlight a number of phenomena, including concept learning, spatial cognition, timing, and metacognition, for which targeted comparative research may reveal unexpected adaptive variation in cognitive processes in these complex animals. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: In Honor of Jerry Hogan.