Foraging bees fly with heavy loads of nectar and pollen, incurring energetic costs that are typically assumed to depend on load size. Insects can produce more force by increasing stroke amplitude and/or flapping frequency, but the kinematic response of a given species is thought to be consistent. We examined bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) carrying both light and heavy loads and found that stroke amplitude increased in proportion to load size, but did not predict metabolic rate. Rather, metabolic rate was strongly tied to frequency, which was determined not by load size but by the bee's average loading state and loading history, with heavily loaded bees displaying smaller changes in frequency and smaller increases in metabolic rate to support additional loading. This implies that bees can increase force production through alternative mechanisms; yet, they often choose the energetically costly option of elevating frequency, suggesting associated performance benefits that merit further investigation.

Pollen collection is necessary for bee survival and important for flowering plant reproduction, yet if and how pollen extraction motor routines are modified with experience is largely unknown. Here, we used an automated reward and monitoring system to evaluate modification in a common pollen-extraction routine, floral sonication. Through a series of laboratory experiments with the bumblebee, Bombus impatiens, we examined whether variation in sonication frequency and acceleration is due to instrumental learning based on rewards, a fixed behavioral response to rewards, and/or a mechanical constraint. We first investigated whether bees could learn to adjust their sonication frequency in response to pollen rewards given only for specified frequency ranges and found no evidence of instrumental learning. However, we found that absence versus receipt of a pollen reward did lead to a predictable behavioral response, which depended on bee size. Finally, we found some evidence of mechanical constraints, in that flower mass affected sonication acceleration (but not frequency) through an interaction with bee size. In general, larger bees showed more flexibility in sonication frequency and acceleration, potentially reflecting a size-based constraint on the range over which smaller bees can modify frequency and acceleration. Overall, our results show that although bees did not display instrumental learning of sonication frequency, their sonication motor routine is nevertheless flexible.

Previous work has shown that wing wear increases mortality in bumblebees. Although a proximate mechanism for this phenomenon has remained elusive, a leading hypothesis is that wing wear increases predation risk by reducing flight manoeuvrability. We tested the effects of simulated wing wear on flight manoeuvrability in Bombus impatiens bumblebees using a dynamic obstacle course designed to push bees towards their performance limits. We found that removing 22% wing area from the tips of both forewings (symmetric wear) caused a 9% reduction in peak acceleration during manoeuvring flight, while performing the same manipulation on only one wing (asymmetric wear) did not significantly reduce maximum acceleration. The rate at which bees collided with obstacles was correlated with body length across all treatments, but wing wear did not increase collision rate, possibly because shorter wingspans allow more room for bees to manoeuvre. This study presents a novel method for exploring extreme flight manoeuvres in flying insects, eliciting peak accelerations that exceed those measured during flight through a stationary obstacle course. If escape from aerial predation is constrained by acceleration capacity, then our results offer a potential explanation for the observed increase in bumblebee mortality with wing wear.