Local geographic distributions of bumble bees near crested butte, Colorado: Competition and community structure revisited

Graham H. Pyke*, David W. Inouye, James D. Thomson

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    32 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Surveys in 1974 of bumble bee species distributions along elevational gradients (Pyke 1982) were revisited to reevaluate the original conclusion that coexistence of bumble bee species can be ascribed to niche differentiation, primarily on the basis of proboscis lengths and the associated corolla lengths of visited flowers. Each bee species largely visited a few plant species, which were preferred relative to other species. Bee proboscis length was correlated with average corolla length of visited flowers, but not when species with relatively long and short proboscises were considered separately. Bumble bee abundance was affected by presence or absence of major plant species and, contrary to the interpretation of Pyke (1982), elevation, with neither factor dominating. Multimodal distributions of proboscis lengths and altitudinal replacement of bee species of similar proboscis length were consistent with the original hypothesis that bumble bee species compete for floral resources, especially nectar, and cannot coexist if proboscis lengths are too similar, unless one species is a "nectar robber" and hence has exclusive use of some floral resources. However, observed overlap in elevational distributions of bumble bee species with similar proboscis length cannot be reconciled with this hypothesis unless other phenomena are invoked.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1332-1349
    Number of pages18
    JournalEnvironmental Entomology
    Volume41
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2012

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Local geographic distributions of bumble bees near crested butte, Colorado: Competition and community structure revisited'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this