The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Foraging Specializations of Individual Bumblebees
Abstract
Bumblebees of any one species in Maine forage for pollen and/or nectar from a large variety of morphologically diverse flowers, but individuals have limited foraging repertoires at any one time. Unspecialized individuals were sometimes unsuccessful in extracting nectar and/or pollen from highly rewarding flowers. In any one area with a variety of concurrently blooming plants, the bumblebees had apparent species preferences. Superimposed on the species preferences were individual preferences. Individuals had primary foraging specialties (their majors) and secondary specialities (their minors). Minors were often bridges to new majors. Queens in Maine necessarily have several successive majors during their lifetime since the blooming time of the plants they utilize are brief relative to their life—span as foragers. However, the blooming time of most plants available to Bombus fervidus workers are long relative to their lifetime. Switching was rarely observed in these bees, even in some individuals observed daily for up to 1 mo at the same foraging area containing other plant species in bloom that were highly attractive to other individuals of the same bumblebee species. On a per flower basis, those flowers producing the most food rewards generally had the largest number of bees majoring from them, and the food rewards available were roughly comparable between different kinds of flowers, regardless of their differences in rates of nectar production. Specializing was usually preceded by sampling a variety of rewarding as well as nonrewarding flowers. When the flowers from which bees were majoring in an area were experimentally removed many of the bees sampled flowers of other concurrently blooming plants, but they generally did not switch to flowers from which the food rewards were being depleted by specialists, unless these were experimentally fortified with syrup. Upon finding superior food rewards in enriched blossoms, they switched immediately. Flower—specificity is related to site—specificity. Many bees shared the same foraging area, but different individual bees at the same site utilized the flowers of different plant species. When the foraging area contained landmarks, the bees visited clumps of flowers in a sequence (foraging path) that was generally repeated several times on the same foraging trip when the foraging site was small. The foraging behavior of bumblebees is discussed from a comparative standpoint with other bees and in relation to food distribution and availability in the environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England
Woodcock, B. A., Isaac, N. J. B., Bullock, J. M., Roy, D. B., Garthwaite, D. G., Crowe, A., & Pywell, R. F. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12459 · Cited by 550
Gumbert, A. (2000) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s002650000213 · Cited by 384
A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF POLLEN HOST PLANT USE BY STABLE AND DECLINING BUMBLE BEE SPECIES
Kleijn, D., & Raemakers, I. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-1275.1 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Heinrich, B.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1976-03
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 105-128
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W1981139674
- Cited by
- 604
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Foraging Specializations of Individual Bumblebees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1942246
- The paper
- Heinrich, B. (1976). The Foraging Specializations of Individual Bumblebees. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942246
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.