|Appears in Collections:||Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Forage use and niche partitioning by non-native bumblebees in New Zealand: Implications for the conservation of their populations of origin|
Kaden, J C
|Citation:||Lye G, Kaden JC, Park K & Goulson D (2010) Forage use and niche partitioning by non-native bumblebees in New Zealand: Implications for the conservation of their populations of origin, Journal of Insect Conservation, 14 (6), pp. 607-615.|
|Abstract:||Bumblebees were introduced into New Zealand from the UK approximately 120 years ago and four species became established. Two of these, Bombus terrestris and B. hortorum, are common in Europe whilst two, B. ruderatus and B. subterraneus, have experienced declines, and the latter is now extinct in the UK. The presence of these species in New Zealand presents an opportunity to study their ecology in a contrasting environment. Forage visits made by bumblebees in New Zealand were recorded across a season. Ninety six percent of visits were to six non- native forage plants (Cirsium vulgare, Echium vulgare, Hypericum perforatum, Lotus corniculatus, Lupinus polyphyllus and Trifolium pratense). All but L. polyphyllus are European plant species, and three are noxious weeds in New Zealand. Several of these plants have decreased in abundance in the UK, providing a potential explanation for the declines of B. ruderatus and B. subterraneus in Britain. In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, B. ruderatus, B. terrestris and B. hortorum did not differ in diet breadth and overlap in forage use was high, probably due to the reduced diversity of bumblebee forage plants present in New Zealand. Diel partitioning of forage use between the species was observed, with foraging activity of B. hortorum greatest in the morning and evening, B. ruderatus greatest in the middle of the day and B. terrestris intermediate between the two. These patterns correspond to the climatic preferences of each species as evidenced by their geographic ranges. Implications for bumblebee conservation in the UK are discussed.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author; you can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|lye2010.pdf||439.61 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 31/12/2999 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.