Assessment of pollen rewards by foraging bees

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.The removal of pollen by flower-visiting insects is costly to plants, not only in terms of production, but also via lost reproductive potential. Modern angiosperms have evolved various reward strategies to limit these costs, yet many plant species still offer pollen as a sole or major reward for pollinating insects. 2. The benefits plants gain by offering pollen as a reward for pollinating are defined by the behaviour of their pollinators, some of which feed on the pollen at the flower, while others collect pollen to provision offspring. 3. We explore how pollen impacts on the behaviour and foraging decisions of pollen-collecting bees, drawing comparisons with what is known for nectar rewards. This question is of particular interest since foraging bees typically do not ingest pollen during collection, meaning the sensory pathways involved in evaluating this resource are not immediately obvious. 4. Previous research focussed on whether foraging bees can determine the quality of pollen sources offered by different plant species, and attempted to infer the mechanisms underpinning such evaluations, mainly through observations of collection preferences in the field 5. More recent experimental research has started to focus on if pollen itself can mediate the detection of, and learning about, pollen sources and associated floral cues. 6. We review advancements in the understanding of how bees forage for pollen and respond to variation in pollen quality, and discuss future directions for studying how this ancestral floral food reward shapes the behaviour of pollinating insects

A possible relationship between aspects of dentition and feeding in the centrarchid and anabantoid fishes

Certain components of dentition — teeth on the third basibranchial in the Centrarchidae and on the parasphenoid in the anabantoids (sensu lato) — are very rare elsewhere in higher teleostean fishes. Though these basibranchial and parasphenoid teeth in the two fish groups are on opposite sides of the oral cavity, it is hypothesized that they both developed as adaptations for gripping a particular category of food items, namely strong-clawed, hard-shelled, active animals that, once within the oral cavity, would try to crawl out again. A corollary to this hypothesis is that higher teleosts with extensive dentition in the central part of the oral cavity have a grasping jaw bite, which, unlike a piercing, shearing, or crushing jaw bite, does not necessarily kill the prey that is taken into the oral cavity.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/42630/1/10641_2004_Article_BF00005147.pd

Fauna of euglossina (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from southwestern Amazonia, Acre, Brazil

Male orchid bees were collected between December 2005 and September 2006 in 11 forest areas of different sizes in the region of Rio Branco, Acre, Southwestern Amazonia, Brazil. The bees were attracted by 6 aromatic compounds and collected by insect nets and scent baited traps. A total of 3,675 males of Euglossina in 4 genera and 36 species were collected. Eulaema cingulata (Fabricius) was the most common (24.6%), followed by Eulaema meriana (Olivier) (14.6%), Euglossa amazonica Dressler (10.5%), Eulaema nigrita Lepeletier (10.5%) and Eulaema pseudocingulata (Oliveira) (7.2%). Cineole was the scent that attracted the greatest number of individuals (23.8%) and methyl salicylate the greatest number of species (28) for both methods of sampling. Thirty one bees of 9 species with pollinar orchid attached to their bodies were collected. The accumulative number of species stabilized after the 48th collection. Few species were abundant; the great majority were represented by less than 50 bees. The lack of standardized sample protocols limited very much the conclusions derived from comparisons among the majority of studies on Euglossina assemblages. However, the results presented here suggest that the State of Acre is very rich in those bees compared to other regions.Machos de abelhas Euglossina foram coletados entre dezembro de 2005 e setembro de 2006 em 11 áreas florestais de diferentes tamanhos na região de Rio Branco, Acre, Amazônia Sul-Ocidental. As abelhas foram atraídas por 6 substâncias odoríferas e coletadas com rede entomológica e armadilhas. Um total de 3.675 machos de Euglossina pertencentes a 4 gêneros e 36 espécies foi coletado. Eulaema cingulata (Fabricius) foi a espécie mais comum (24,6%), seguida por Eulaema meriana (Olivier) (14,6%), Euglossa amazonica Dressler (10,5%), Eulaema nigrita Lepeletier (10,5%) e Eulaema pseudocingulata (Oliveira) (7,2%). Cineol foi a substância que atraiu maior número de indivíduos (23,8%) e metil salicilato o maior número de espécies (28) para ambos os métodos de coleta. Foram coletados 31 indivíduos pertencentes a 9 espécies portando polinários. O número acumulado de espécies coletadas na região estabilizou a partir da 48ª coleta. Poucas espécies foram abundantes, a maioria representada por menos que 50 indivíduos. A falta de um protocolo amostral padronizado tem limitado comparações entre trabalhos realizados em diferentes regiões. Contudo, os resultados aqui apresentados indicam que o Acre apresenta elevada riqueza dessas abelhas

Pre-copulatory courtship behavior in a solitary bee, Nomia triangulifera Vachal (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)

Complex courtship behavior occurs both before and during mating of a solitary bee, Nomia triangulifera. Males begin emerging before females, and patrol over the emergence site, although some males also fly near sunflower plants, the exclusive food source of the females. The sizes of males patrolling at these two locations, and those collected while mating were not significantly different. Courtship behavior involves use of the fore- and mid-legs, the metasoma (abdomen), antennae, and the indirect flight muscles to produce loud, audible buzzes. The hind legs have expanded tibiae which are used for clasping the female. Females rarely mated more than once when held in cages. Receptive females usually lacked sperm in their spermathecae, while unreceptive females often had sperm