@article {1527,
	title = {Foraging, grooming and mate-seeking behaviors of Macropis nuda (Hymenoptera, Melittidae) and use of Lysimachia ciliata (Primulaceae) oils in larval provisions and cell linings},
	journal = {American Midland Naturalist},
	volume = {110},
	year = {1983},
	month = {1983///},
	pages = {257 - 264},
	keywords = {BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BEHAVIOR-MATING, GROOMING, LARVAE, LARVAL PROVISIONS, MELITTIDAE, NEST LINING, OLIGOLECTY, PRIMULACEAE},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Eickwort,G.C. and Wesley,F.R. and Spielholz,J.}
}
@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 {1555,
	title = {Honey bees harvest pollen from the porose anthers of cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon)(Ericaceae)},
	journal = {American Bee Journal},
	volume = {133},
	year = {1993},
	month = {1993///},
	pages = {293 - 295},
	keywords = {APIDAE, APIS, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BUZZ POLLINATION, CRANBERRIES, ERICACEAE, FLORAL REWARDS-POLLEN, POLLEN, POLLINATOR, VACCINIUM},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and MacKenzie,K. and Schiffhauer,D.}
}
@article {1626,
	title = {Temporal patterns of floral visitation for two bees foraging at Solanum},
	journal = {Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society},
	volume = {66},
	year = {1993},
	month = {1993///},
	pages = {319 - 327},
	keywords = {APIDAE, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BOMBUS, BUZZ POLLINATION, COLLETIDAE, COMPETITION, FLORAL REWARDS-POLLEN, PHENOLOGY, POLLEN REMOVAL, RESOURCE PARTITIONING, SOLANACEAE},
	author = {Shelly,T.E. and Villalobos,E.M. and Buchmann,S.L. and Cane, J. H.}
}
@article {1551,
	title = {The solitary bee Melissodes thelypodii thelypodii Cockerell (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae) collects pollen from wind-pollinated Amaranthus palmeri Watson},
	journal = {Pan-Pacific Entomologist},
	volume = {68},
	year = {1992},
	month = {1992///},
	pages = {97 - 99},
	keywords = {ANEMOPHILY, ANTHOPHORIDAE, Apoidea, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, FLORAL REWARDS-POLLEN, POLLEN},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Buchmann,S.L. and LaBerge,W.E.}
}
@article {1632,
	title = {Floral resource utilization by solitary bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) and exploitation of their stored foods by natural enemies},
	journal = {Annual Review of Entomology},
	volume = {41},
	year = {1996},
	month = {1996///},
	pages = {195 - 224},
	keywords = {Apoidea, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BEHAVIOR-NESTING, CLEPTOPARASITE, COEVOLUTION, FLORAL MORPHOLOGY, FLORAL REWARDS-NECTAR, FLORAL REWARDS-OILS, FLORAL REWARDS-POLLEN, OLIGOLECTY, PARASITISM, PLANT-ANIMAL INTERACTION, PREDATION},
	author = {Wcislo,W.T. and Cane, J. H.}
}
@article {1560,
	title = {Pollination, foraging, and nesting ecology of the leaf-cutting bee Megachile (Delomegachile) addenda (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) on cranberry beds},
	journal = {Annals of the Entomological Society of America},
	volume = {89},
	year = {1996},
	month = {1996///},
	pages = {361 - 367},
	keywords = {BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BEHAVIOR-MATING, BEHAVIOR-NESTING, BUZZ POLLINATION, CLEPTOPARASITE, CRANBERRIES, ECOLOGY, ERICACEAE, MEGACHILE, Megachilidae, POLLEN LOAD- BEE, POLLEN LOAD- STIGMA, POLLEN PRODUCTION, POLLEN REMOVAL, POLLINATION, POLLINATION EFFICIENCY, POLLINATOR, SOIL, VACCINIUM},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Schiffhauer,D. and Kervin,L.J.}
}
@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 {1619,
	title = {The effect of pollen protein concentration on body size in the sweat bee Lasioglossum zephyrum (Hymenoptera : Apiformes)},
	volume = {16},
	year = {2002},
	month = {2002///},
	pages = {49 - 65},
	abstract = {Adult bees and wasps provide all the food their offspring require to grow from egg to adult. For a given diet. offspring body size generally increases with an increase in the amount of food consumed as a larva, but the extent to which body size is influenced by the type of food consumed is poorly known. Pollen ranges from 2-60\% protein among plant species, and bees are extremely efficient at assimilating nitrogen; therefore, it seems likely that either parent bees adjust the size of larval provisions to compensate for differences in pollen protein concentration or bee offspring attain different body size depending on the pollen type(s) consumed as a larva, We presented the generalist sweat bee Lasioglossum zephyrum with pollen diets that differed in protein content and monitored offspring body size during two experiments. In a protein supplementation experiment, diets ranged from 20-66\% protein and consisted of Typha pollen amended with soy protein. On a pollen/soy diet, offspring body size increased 25\% with a shift from 20-37\% protein, but did not increase further at greater protein concentrations, In a multiple pollen experiment, pollen diets ranged from 20-39\% protein and consisted of eight pollens that differed naturally in protein concentration. The largest offspring arose from the most protein-rich pollens, whereas much smaller bees developed on protein-poor pollens, Provision size only predicted offspring size when pollen type, and therefore protein quantity, was considered. Adult foragers did not adjust provision size to compensate for pollen protein, Therefore, offspring body size appears to result from a combination of controlled (provision size) and uncontrolled (pollen quality) factors that arise out of bee foraging decisions},
	keywords = {Apoidea, BEE SIZE, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BEHAVIOR-NESTING, Halictidae, LARVAL PROVISIONS, NUTRITION, POLLEN, PROTEIN, SIZE},
	author = {Roulston,T.H. and Cane, J. H.}
}
@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.}
}
@article {1624,
	title = {Foraging behavior, pollinator effectiveness, and management potential of the new world squash bees Peponapis pruinosa and Xenoglossa strenua (Apidae: Eucerini)},
	volume = {42},
	year = {2007},
	month = {2007///},
	pages = {459 - 459},
	keywords = {ANTHOPHORIDAE, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, CUCURBITACEAE, OLIGOLECTY, POLLINATION, POLLINATION EFFICIENCY, POLLINATOR},
	url = {ISI:000246456600143},
	author = {Sampson,B.J. and Knight,P.R. and Cane, J. H. and Spiers,J.M.}
}
@inbook {1586,
	title = {Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes)},
	booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Entomology},
	year = {2008},
	month = {2008///},
	pages = {419 - 434},
	publisher = {Springer-Verlag Press},
	organization = {Springer-Verlag Press},
	address = {New York},
	keywords = {Apoidea, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BEHAVIOR-MATING, BEHAVIOR-NESTING, BIOGEOGRAPHY, CLEPTOPARASITE, DIVERSITY, LARVAE, LIFE HISTORY, OLIGOLECTY},
	author = {Cane, J. H.},
	editor = {Capinera,J.L.}
}
@article {1625,
	title = {Biology and management potential for three orchard bee species (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): Osmia ribifloris Cockerell, O. lignaria (Say) and O. chalybea Smith, with emphasis on the former},
	volume = {810},
	year = {2009},
	month = {2009///},
	pages = {549 - 556},
	abstract = {What follows is comprehensive information on the biology and techniques for propagating select species of orchard bees for blueberry pollination, especially Osmia ribifloris Cockerell. Before we introduce O. ribifloris or any other bee species to a blueberry farm commercially, we must rear enough adults for field-scale release, design cheaper, lightweight nesting materials and increase grower awareness of the bee{\textquoteright}s value. We hope that by delivering reproductively viable bees onto farms, berry producers will gain a secondary source of revenue from selling surplus Osmia cocoons and nesting supplies. The results we present here represent 14 years of rearing orchard bees in the Deep South (Alabama and Mississippi), and should apply to blueberry growing regions west of the Mississippi River where one of the bee species, Osmia ribifloris, is endemic (e.g., Texas, California and Oregon). We also discuss some ecological, physiological and genetic costs of keeping a small pollinator population in captivity for almost a decade.},
	keywords = {ASTERACEAE, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BEHAVIOR-NESTING, LIFE HISTORY, Megachilidae, OSMIA, POLLINATION, POLLINATOR, VACCINIUM},
	author = {Sampson,B.J. and Cane, J. H. and Kirker,G.T. and Stringer,S.J. and Spiers,J.M.}
}
@article {1614,
	title = {The alfalfa leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata: The world{\textquoteright}s most intensively managed solitary bee},
	journal = {Annual Review of Entomology},
	volume = {56},
	year = {2011},
	note = {doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144836},
	month = {2011/12/06/},
	pages = {221 - 237},
	abstract = {The alfalfa leafcutting bee (ALCB), Megachile rotundata F. (Megachildae), was accidentally introduced into the United States by the 1940s. Nest management of this Eurasian nonsocial pollinator transformed the alfalfa seed industry in North America, tripling seed production. The most common ALCB management practice is the loose cell system, in which cocooned bees are removed from nesting cavities for cleaning and storage. Traits of ALCBs that favored their commercialization include gregarious nesting; use of leaves for lining nests; ready acceptance of affordable, mass-produced nesting materials; alfalfa pollination efficacy; and emergence synchrony with alfalfa bloom. The ALCB became a commercial success because much of its natural history was understood, targeted research was pursued, and producer ingenuity was encouraged. The ALCB presents a model system for commercializing other solitary bees and for advancing new testable hypotheses in diverse biological disciplines},
	keywords = {BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BEHAVIOR-NESTING, DISEASE, EXOTIC, FABACEAE, MEDICAGO, MEGACHILE, Megachilidae, POLLINATION, POLLINATOR, REPRODUCTION},
	isbn = {0066-4170},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144836},
	author = {Pitts-Singer,T.L. and Cane, J. H.}
}
@article {1592,
	title = {Specialist Osmia bees forage indiscriminately among hybridizing Balsamorhiza floral hosts},
	volume = {167},
	year = {2011},
	month = {2011/09/01/},
	pages = {107 - 116},
	abstract = {Pollinators, even floral generalists (=polyleges), typically specialize during individual foraging bouts, infrequently switching between floral hosts. Such transient floral constancy restricts pollen flow, and thereby gene flow, to conspecific flowers in mixed plant communities. Where incipient flowering species meet, however, weak cross-fertility and often similar floral traits can yield mixed reproductive outcomes among pollinator-dependent species. In these cases, floral constancy by polyleges sometimes serves as an ethological mating barrier. More often, their foraging infidelities instead facilitate host introgression and hybridization. Many other bee species are oligolectic (taxonomic specialists for pollen). Oligoleges could be more discriminating connoisseurs than polyleges when foraging among their limited set of related floral hosts. If true, greater foraging constancy might ensue, contributing to positive assortative mating and disruptive selection, thereby facilitating speciation among their interfertile floral hosts. To test this Connoisseur Hypothesis, nesting females of two species of oligolectic Osmia bees were presented with randomized mixed arrays of flowers of two sympatric species of their pollen host, Balsamorhiza, a genus known for hybridization. In a closely spaced grid, the females of both species preferred the larger flowered B. macrophylla, evidence for discrimination. However, both species{\textquoteright} females showed no floral constancy whatsoever during their individual foraging bouts, switching randomly between species proportional to their floral preference. In a wider spaced array in which the bouquets reflected natural plant spacing, foraging oligolectic bees often transferred pollen surrogates (fluorescent powders) both between conspecific flowers (geitonogamy and xenogamy) and between the two Balsamorhiza species. The Connoisseur Hypothesis was therefore rejected. Foraging infidelity by these oligolectic Osmia bees will contribute to introgression and hybridization where interfertile species of Balsamorhiza meet and flower together. A literature review reveals that other plant genera whose species hybridize also attract numerous oligolectic bees, providing independent opportunities to test the generality of this conclusion.},
	keywords = {ASTERACEAE, BALSAMORHIZA, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, CONSTANCY, HYBRIDIZATION, Megachilidae, OLIGOLECTY, OSMIA, POLLEN FLOW, STATISTICS},
	isbn = {0029-8549},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-1977-1},
	author = {Cane,James}
}
