@article {1544,
	title = {Novel pollen-harvesting behavior by the bee Protandrena mexicanorum (Hymenoptera:Andrenidae)},
	volume = {2},
	year = {1989},
	month = {1989///},
	pages = {431 - 436},
	keywords = {ANDRENIDAE, Apoidea, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, OLIGOLECTY, POLLINATOR, SOLANACEAE},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Buchmann,S.L.}
}
@article {1606,
	title = {Foraging by bee pollinators of cranberry},
	volume = {57},
	year = {1993},
	month = {1993/07//},
	pages = {10,21 - 10,22},
	keywords = {APIS, Apoidea, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BOMBUS, CRANBERRIES, ERICACEAE, MEGACHILE, POLLINATOR, VISITATION RATE},
	author = {MacKenzie,K. and Cane, J. H. and Schiffhauer,D.}
}
@article {1620,
	title = {Blue bees for blueberries?},
	volume = {42},
	year = {1995},
	month = {1995///},
	pages = {12 - 3,15},
	keywords = {Apoidea, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BEHAVIOR-NESTING, FRUIT SET, Megachilidae, OLIGOLECTY, OSMIA, POLLINATION, POLLINATOR, VACCINIUM, VACCINIUM ASHEI},
	author = {Sampson,B. and Cane, J. H. and Neff,J.}
}
@article {1569,
	title = {Pollinator genetics and pollination: do honey bee colonies selected for pollen-hoarding field better pollinators of cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon?},
	journal = {Ecological Entomology},
	volume = {26},
	year = {2001},
	month = {2001///},
	pages = {117 - 123},
	abstract = {1. Genetic polymorphisms of flowering plants can influence pollinator foraging but it is not known whether heritable foraging polymorphisms of pollinators influence their pollination efficacies. Honey bees Apis mellifera L. visit cranberry flowers for nectar but rarely for pollen when alternative preferred flowers grow nearby. 2. Cranberry flowers visited once by pollen-foraging honey bees received fourfold more stigmatic pollen than flowers visited by mere nectar-foragers (excluding nectar thieves). Manual greenhouse pollinations with fixed numbers of pollen tetrads (0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32) achieved maximal fruit set with just eight pollen tetrads. Pollen-foraging honey bees yielded a calculated 63\% more berries than equal numbers of non-thieving nectar-foragers, even though both classes of forager made stigmatic contact. 3. Colonies headed by queens of a pollen-hoarding genotype fielded significantly more pollen-foraging trips than standard commercial genotypes, as did hives fitted with permanently engaged pollen traps or colonies containing more larvae. Pollen-hoarding colonies together brought back twice as many cranberry pollen loads as control colonies, which was marginally significant despite marked daily variation in the proportion of collected pollen that was cranberry. 4. Caloric supplementation of matched, paired colonies failed to enhance pollen foraging despite the meagre nectar yields of individual cranberry flowers. 5. Heritable behavioural polymorphisms of the honey bee, such as pollen-hoarding, can enhance fruit and seed set by a floral host (e.g. cranberry), but only if more preferred pollen hosts are absent or rare. Otherwise, honey bees{\textquoteright} broad polylecty, flight range, and daily idiosyncrasies in floral fidelity will obscure specific pollen-foraging differences at a given floral host, even among paired colonies in a seemingly uniform agricultural setting},
	keywords = {APIDAE, APIS, Apoidea, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, CRANBERRIES, ERICACEAE, FLIGHT, FLORAL REWARDS-POLLEN, FLOWERING, FRUIT SET, FRUIT SIZE, GENETICS, LARVAE, POLLEN, POLLEN LOAD- STIGMA, POLLEN TRAP, POLLINATION, POLLINATION EFFICIENCY, POLLINATOR, POLYLECTY, POLYMORPHISM, SEED, SEED SET, TRAP, VACCINIUM, VARIATION},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Schiffhauer,D.}
}
@article {1617,
	title = {Pollen nutritional content and digestibility for animals},
	journal = {Plant Systematics and Evolution},
	volume = {222},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000///},
	pages = {187 - 209},
	abstract = {This paper reviews the literature concerning digestion and nutrient content of pollen. Four topics are addressed in detail: 1) The mechanism of pollen digestion by animals; 2) The efficiency of mechanical and digestive removal of pollen content by various animals: 3) Range and taxonomic distribution of pollen nutrients, and 4) Adaptive hypotheses proposed to associate pollen chemistry with pollinator reward. Studies on the mechanism(s) of pollen digestion remain inconclusive, but suggest that differences in digestibility among pollen types may reflect differences in pollen wall porosity, thickness, and composition. Although hummingbirds reportedly digest pollen very poorly, most animals studied, including those that do not regularly consume pollen, can digest 50-100\% of ingested grains. Overlooked and recent research of pollen protein content shows that pollen grains may contain over 60\% protein, double the amount cited in some studies of pollen-feeding animals. Adaptive hypotheses that associate pollen starch and pollen caloric content with pollinator reward remain unsubstantiated when critically viewed through the lens of phylogeny},
	keywords = {Apoidea, BATS, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BIRD, DIGESTION, HUMMINGBIRD, PHYLOGENY, POLLEN, POLLEN- ANALYSIS, POLLEN-CHEMISTRY, POLLINATOR, PROTEIN, SUGAR},
	author = {Roulston,T.H. and Cane, J. H.}
}
