PCI Zoology

Title

Cuckoo male bumblebees perform slower and longer flower visits than free-living male and worker bumblebeesuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors

Alessandro Fisogni, Gherardo Bogo, François Massol, Laura Bortolotti, Marta GalloniPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year

2021

Picture

Abstract

<p>Cuckoo bumblebees are a monophyletic group within the genus Bombus and social parasites of free-living bumblebees, upon which they rely to rear their offspring. Cuckoo bumblebees lack the worker caste and visit flowers primarily for their own sustenance and do not collect pollen. Although different flower-visiting behaviours can be expected between cuckoo and free-living bumblebees due to different biological constraints, no study has yet quantified such differences. Here, we provide the first empirical evidence of different flower-visiting behaviours between cuckoo and free-living bumblebees. We recorded the flower-visiting behaviour of 350 individual bumblebees over two years in a wild population of the entomophilous plant <em>Gentiana lutea</em>, of which they are among the main pollinators. In cuckoo bumblebees (28.9% of the total), we only found males, while we found both workers and males in free-living bumblebees. Cuckoo bumblebees visited significantly more flowers for longer time periods than both free-living bumblebee workers and males within whorls, while differences at the whole-plant level were less marked. Free-living bumblebee males visited more flowers and performed slightly longer flower visits than workers. Behavioural differences between cuckoo male bumblebees and free-living bumblebee workers are likely related to different foraging needs, while differences between cuckoo and free-living bumblebee males may be caused by differences in colony development and a delayed mating period of free-living bumblebees. The longer visits made by cuckoo male bumblebees will likely negatively affect plant reproductive success through increased within-plant pollen flow.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@zool.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5161010You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@zool.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint.

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@zool.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint.

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords

behaviour, Bombus, bumblebee, cuckoo bumblebee, geitonogamy, Gentiana lutea, plant fitness, pollination, Psithyrus, social parasitism, bees

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields

Behavior, Biology, Ecology, Insecta, Invertebrates, Terrestrial

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Zool. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2021-02-02 01:41:35

Recommender

Michael Lattorff

Reviewers

Patrick Lhomme, Seth Barribeau , Silvio Erler, Denis Michez

or Register
Submit a preprint