Search

The transmission of pathogens from reservoir to recipient host species, termed pathogen spillover, can profoundly impact plant, animal, and public health. However, why some pathogens lead to disease emergence in a novel species while others fail to establish or do not elicit disease is often poorly understood. There is strong evidence that deformed wing virus (DWV), an (+)ssRNA virus, spills over from its reservoir host, the honeybee Apis mellifera, into the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. However, the low impact of DWV on B. terrestris in laboratory experiments suggests host barriers to virus spread in this recipient host. To investigate potential host barriers, we followed the spread of DWV genotype B (DWV-B) through a host's body using RT-PCR after experimental transmission to bumblebees in comparison to honeybees. Inoculation was per os, mimicking food-borne transmission, or by injection into the bee's haemocoel, mimicking vector-based transmission. In honeybees, DWV-B was present in both honeybee faeces and haemolymph within 3 days of inoculation per os or by injection. In contrast, DWV-B was not detected in B. terrestris haemolymph after inoculation per os, suggesting a gut barrier that hinders DWV-B's spread through the body of a B. terrestris. DWV-B was, however, detected in B. terrestris faeces after injection and feeding, albeit at a lower abundance than that observed for A. mellifera, suggesting that B. terrestris sheds less DWV-B than A. mellifera in faeces when infected. Barriers to viral spread in B. terrestris following oral infection may limit DWV's impact on this spillover host and reduce its contribution to the community epidemiology of DWV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of visual search during bee foraging is relatively understudied compared to the choices made by bees. As bees learn about rewards, we predicted that visual search would be modified to prioritise rewarding flowers. To test this, we ran an experiment testing how bee search differs in the initial and later part of training as they learn about flowers with either higher- or lower-quality rewards. We then ran an experiment to see how this prior training with reward influences their search on a subsequent task with different flowers. We used the time spent inspecting flowers as a measure of attention and found that learning increased attention to rewards and away from unrewarding flowers. Higher quality rewards led to decreased attention to non-flower regions, but lower quality rewards did not. Prior experience of lower rewards also led to more attention to higher rewards compared to unrewarding flowers and non-flower regions. Our results suggest that flowers would elicit differences in bee search behaviour depending on the sugar content of their nectar. They also demonstrate the utility of studying visual search and have important implications for understanding the pollination ecology of flowers with different qualities of reward. Significance statement: Studies investigating how foraging bees learn about reward typically focus on the choices made by the bees. How bees deploy attention and visual search during foraging is less well studied. We analysed flight videos to characterise visual search as bees learn which flowers are rewarding. We found that learning increases the focus of bees on flower regions. We also found that the quality of the reward a flower offers influences how much bees search in non-flower areas. This means that a flower with lower reward attracts less focussed foraging compared to one with a higher reward. Since flowers do differ in floral reward, this has important implications for how focussed pollinators will be on different flowers. Our approach of looking at search behaviour and attention thus advances our understanding of the cognitive ecology of pollination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many pollinators, such as bees, hummingbirds and bats, use multi-destination routes (traplines) to exploit familiar plant resources. However, it is not clear to what extent the mechanisms underpinning trapline development and optimisation are comparable across species. Here we compared route formation, repeatability and efficiency by foragers of two social bee species, the solo foraging bumblebee Bombus terrestris and the mass foraging honey bee Apis mellifera, in the same laboratory conditions. In a simple routing task (with four artificial flowers), all bumblebees and honey bees developed a route, although honey bees were slower to do so. In a more complex routing task (with six flowers), however, only bumblebees developed a route between the 6 flowers. Honey bees took a longer time to discover all flowers and developed routes between fewer flowers. Comparing bumblebees and honey bees using the same experimental paradigm thus revealed key behavioural differences likely resulting from their contrasting collective foraging strategies. Significance statement: Pollinators face some of the most complex foraging challenge among animals: collecting small amounts of nectar from large numbers of flowers in a minimum of time. Previous studies report bees, birds and bats rely on spatial memory to develop routes optimising foraging efficiency. Here we compared this routing behaviour in two major pollinators, the buff-tailed bumblebee and the Western honey bee, in the same experimental conditions. We found that bumblebees were much faster and more efficient at visiting flowers following repeatable sequences than honey bees. This behavioural difference suggests bee cognition is shaped by their social ecology and illuminates about the known complementarity of different bee species for pollination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]