Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/7166
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGoulson, Dave-
dc.contributor.authorStout, Jane C-
dc.contributor.authorHawson, Sadie A-
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-01T23:15:08Z-
dc.date.issued1997-10-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/7166-
dc.description.abstractWhen foraging for nectar many insects exhibit flower constancy (a preference for flower species which they have previously visited) and frequently ignore rewarding flowers of other species. Darwin proposed the favoured explanation for this behaviour, hypothesizing that learning of handling skills for one flower species interferes with the ability to recall handling skills for previously learned species. A crucial element of this hypothesis is that savings in handling time resulting from constancy must exceed increases in travelling time necessitated by ignoring other suitable species. A convincing quantification of this trade-off has not been achieved and tests to date on bumblebees indicate that savings in handling time are too small to offset an increase in travelling time. To assess further the validity of Darwin’s hypothesis, handling and flight times of the butterfly, Thymelicus flavus, were measured under natural conditions, and the abundance and reward provided by the available flower species quantified to enable estimation of foraging efficiency. Butterflies exhibited a mean increase in handling time of 0.85 s per flower associated with switching between flower species, although the magnitude of this difference varied greatly among flower species. Switching was not associated with a decrease in travelling time, contrary to expectation. Switching was more frequent following a lower than average reward from the last flower visited. In butterflies, flights serve functions other than movement between nectar sources, such as mate location (unlike worker bees). Hence constancy may be a viable strategy to reduce time spent in handling flowers and increase time available for other activities. Although savings in handling time may be small, Darwin’s interference hypothesis remains a valid explanation for flower constancy in foraging butterflen_UK
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherSpringer-
dc.relationGoulson D, Stout JC & Hawson SA (1997) Can flower constancy in nectaring butterflies be explained by Darwin's interference hypothesis?, Oecologia, 112 (2), pp. 225-231.-
dc.rightsThe 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.-
dc.subjectforaging efficiencyen_UK
dc.subjectmajoringen_UK
dc.subjectbutterflyen_UK
dc.subjectrewarden_UK
dc.subjectlearningen_UK
dc.titleCan flower constancy in nectaring butterflies be explained by Darwin's interference hypothesis?en_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2999-12-31T00:00:00Z-
dc.rights.embargoreasonThe publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository therefore there is an embargo on the full text of the work.-
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004420050304-
dc.citation.jtitleOecologia-
dc.citation.issn0029-8549-
dc.citation.volume112-
dc.citation.issue2-
dc.citation.spage225-
dc.citation.epage231-
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublished-
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereed-
dc.type.statusPublisher version (final published refereed version)-
dc.author.emaildave.goulson@stir.ac.uk-
dc.contributor.affiliationBiological and Environmental Sciences-
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Southampton-
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Southampton-
dc.rights.embargoterms2999-12-31-
dc.rights.embargoliftdate2999-12-31-
dc.identifier.isiA1997YA69300012-
Appears in Collections:Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
goulson_flower_constancy.pdf533.66 kBAdobe PDFUnder Permanent Embargo    Request a copy


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 library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.