Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 160, Issue 1, pp 275–279 | Cite as

Review of the diet specialisation of the Blue-cheeked bee-eater (Merops persicus)

  • Karl Gunnarsson
  • Robert EkblomEmail author
Open Access
Short Communication

Abstract

Ecological specialisation, e.g. in terms of prey preferences, can have important implications for population biology. Bee-eaters are considered diet specialists; they hunt aerial insects, particularly hymenopterans. However, the Blue-cheeked bee-eater (Merops persicus) has been considered a special case, as it preferentially feeds upon dragonflies (Odonata). Here we review current literature on the diet of the Blue-cheeked bee-eater, and conclude that this species is not as restricted to dragonflies as previously suggested. Instead, populations in different parts of the breeding and wintering ranges seem to specialise on various types of insects (such as wasps, bees, dragonflies, butterflies and mosquitoes).

Keywords

Prey specialisation Foraging Bird Odonata Dragonfly 

Zusammenfassung

Ein Überblick über die Nahrungsspezialisierung des Blauwangenspints (Merops persicus). Eine ökologische Spezialisierung, beispielsweise im Hinblick auf die Beutepräferenzen, kann weitreichende Folgen für die Populationsbiologie haben. Bienenfresser gelten als Nahrungsspezialisten, welche Fluginsekten – speziell Hymenopteren – jagen. Der Blauwangenspint (Merops persicus) galt jedoch bisher als Spezialfall, da er sich vorzugsweise von Libellen (Odonata) ernährt. Hier geben wir einen Überblick über die aktuelle Literatur zur Ernährung des Blauwangenspints und kommen zu dem Schluss, dass diese Art weniger auf Libellen beschränkt ist als bislang angenommen. Stattdessen scheinen sich die Populationen in unterschiedlichen Teilen der Brut- und Überwinterungsgebiete auf verschiedene Insektentypen zu spezialisieren (wie zum Beispiel Wespen, Bienen, Libellen, Schmetterlinge und Mücken).

Introduction

Ecological specialisation can occur at any level and during different time frames (Devictor et al. 2010). In many species, co-occurring individuals actively select different prey from their shared environment. For example, individuals of many bird species tend to specialise on one particular food source for short or long periods of time (Araújo et al. 2011). Sometimes extreme individual feeding specialisation occurs, where individual birds specialise very strictly on one or a few particular feeding modes (Werner and Sherry 1987). Specialisation may also involve whole populations or even entire species. The degree of such specialisation can have important ecological implications.

Bee-eaters (Meropidae) are specialist predators that feed almost exclusively upon flying insects, especially hymenopterans (wasps and bees, Fry 1984). Here we focus on the diet of the Blue-cheeked bee-eater (Merops persicus). Traditionally, this species has been considered a highly specialist predator, with a large proportion of dragonflies (Odonata) in its diet. It has also been suggested to have morphological adaptations, such as long wings, that enable the hunting of dragonflies (Fry 1984). The most comprehensive publications on bee-eater biology portray the Blue-cheeked bee-eater as mainly consuming odonates:

“Eats dragonflies and damselflies and to a much lesser extent Hymenoptera and other flying insects. Analysis of 100 pellets from four West African sites shows that two-thirds of the diet (65.5%) are odonates, and bugs and flies together equal the Hymenoptera” (Fry 1984).

“Bees and wasps feature importantly, but this bird is more a dragonfly-eater than a bee-eater” (Fry et al. 1992).

The four West African sites that Fry (1984) referred to include Lake Chad, the River Niger in Nigeria and Bangui in the Central African Republic. It is thus clear that the above conclusions are based on data from a restricted part of the species range. There are two recognised subspecies of the Blue-cheeked bee-eater: Merops persicus breeds in the Nile Delta and in Asia and winters in eastern and southern Africa, whereas Merops chrysocercus breeds on the fringes of Western Sahara and winters in West Africa, south of 15°N. Overall, M. persicus is a desert-edge bird that breeds in gravelly and sandy habitats near bodies of water (Fry et al. 1992). During non-breeding seasons, flocks of birds inhabit a wide variety of environments, often in the vicinity of open water (Britton and Backhurst 1980).

In more recent publications, the general view that M. persicus is a dragonfly specialist has been modified, with, for instance, Kossenko and Fry (1998) stating that it is more of an opportunistic feeder. The Handbook of the Birds of the World (hereafter HBW; del Hoyo et al. 2001) indicates that it feeds mostly on dragonflies in Africa but mainly on hymenopterans in Asia (with dragonflies constituting about 15% of the diet). Nonetheless, this species is still often regarded as a dragonfly specialist due to the original statements regarding its diet. In order to broaden the understanding of this issue, we reviewed the current literature on the feeding preferences of Blue-cheeked bee-eaters from different parts of the breeding and wintering ranges and in various environments. We also formally tested the assertion that this species is unusually long-winged, which would likely be an adaptation to dragonfly hunting.

Materials and methods

Between 1 March and 30 April 2017, we performed extensive literature searches using the search engines and databases Google Scholar, Web of Science, Africa-Wide Information, BIOSIS Previews, DiVA, SpringerLink, and Medical and Veterinary Entomology, as well as Google-based web searches. Search terms (in English only) included combinations of “Bee-eater”, “Blue-cheeked bee-eater”, “Merops”, “Merops persicus”, “Predation”, “Forage”, “Hunt”, “Diet”, “Anatomy”, “Body”, “Habitat” and “Migration”. In addition to primary scientific literature, we also included information from Corbet (1999), Fry et al. (1992) and Fry (1984), as well as del Hoyo et al. (2001) and references therein. Until recently, the Olive bee-eater (M. superciliosus) was considered conspecific with M. persicus. We thus checked older references and removed any observations likely to relate to taxa other than the actual Blue-cheeked bee-eater.

Statistical analyses and plotting were conducted using R (v.3.3.1). Outlier detection was based on Bonferroni-corrected p values of the residuals from a linear model, obtained using the outlierTest function of the R package car.

Results and discussion

We identified seven published studies investigating the feeding preferences of M. persicus, including data from 12 different locations (Table 1). The mean proportion (across all studies) of Odonata in the diet was 28.4%, compared with a mean proportion of Hymenoptera of 41.5%. However, the distribution of prey types varied considerably between different study populations, ranging from almost exclusive feeding on dragonflies (e.g. 83%, Lake Chad; Fry 1981) to only feeding on other types of prey, e.g. bees (Borrett 1973) or butterflies (Larsen 1992). A large proportion of Odonata in the diet, 55.7–83.6%, was especially common in the studies reported by Fry (1981), which were conducted in areas very close to large bodies of freshwater e.g. River Niger or Lake Chad, while populations occurring in drier environments or close to the sea had other types of flying insects as their main food source. This is in line with statements made in the HBW (del Hoyo et al. 2001).
Table 1

Summary of results from published investigations of M. persicus prey

Location

Habitat

Life stage

Sample type

Number of colonies/individuals/populations

Prey proportions (%, means)

Source

Atrek Delta, Turkmenistan (mixed colonies)

Dry delta

Breeding

Pellets

9 colonies

Odonata: 15.5

Hymenoptera: 65.8

Kossenko and Fry (1998)

Atrek Delta, Turkmenistan (monospecific colonies)

Dry delta

Breeding

Pellets

7 colonies

Odonata: 13.7

Hymenoptera: 58.6

Kossenko and Fry (1998)

Batinah, Oman

Sea coastal plain

Breeding

Pellets

1 colony

Odonata: 0.2

Hymenoptera: 55.5

Heteroptera: 32.3

Kossenko and Fry (1998)

Lake Chad, Nigeria, 1967

Shore

Migration?

Pellets

44 individuals

Odonata: 69.5

Hymenoptera: 4.7

Hemiptera: 10.9

Fry (1981)

Lake Chad, Nigeria, 1968

Shore

Migration?

Pellets

12 individuals

Odonata: 83.6

Hymenoptera: 9.8

Fry (1981)

River Niger, Nigeria

River

Breeding?

Pellets

40 individuals

Odonata: 55.7

Hymenoptera: 28.0

Fry (1981)

Oued Khrouf (El-oued), Algeria

Saharan habitats

Breeding

Pellets

42 individuals

Odonata: 1.0

Hymenoptera: 17.2

Diptera: 40.7

Marniche et al. (2007)

Bangui, Central African Rep.

Near river forest

Wintering

Gizzards

2 individuals

Odonata: 65.0

Fry (1981)

Free State, South Africa

Plains

Wintering

Stomach content

9 individuals

Odonata: 8.5

Hymenoptera: 76.0

Kopij et al. (2000)

Zimbabwe

Farmland

Wintering?

Stomach content

1 individual

Exclusively bees; Apis mellifera

Borrett (1973)

Okavango River, Botswana

River

Wintering

Field observation

1 population

Only butterflies; Catopsilia florellaa

Larsen (1992)

South of Lake Chad, Nigeria

Plains

Wintering?

Field observation

Mainly butterflies

Holmes (1972)

a Temporary specialisation due to a very large local abundance of one particular prey species

The previously generally held notion that the Blue-cheeked bee-eater is best described as a “dragonfly eater” is thus partially erroneous due to biased sampling in terms of habitat in the original studies (Fry 1981). Those study sites were situated very close to large lakes and rivers. In drier habitats, Blue-cheeked bee-eaters seem to be more generalistic, predating on different kinds of flying insects, or temporarily specialising on other taxa such as bees and butterflies. In addition to habitat differences, there may also be seasonal and geographical components to the observed variation in feeding preferences (Table 1). For example, it was found that attacks of M. persicus on honey bee colonies in Iraq were negligible in the pre-breeding and breeding seasons but increased significantly in the post-breeding season (Glaiim 2014). Such variation is likely to be directly linked to the relative abundances of different prey types as well as inter- and intraspecific competition for available food resources.

There was a strong positive correlation between wing length and weight among bee-eaters (rP = 0.95, df  = 17, p < 0.001; Fig. 1). While the Blue-cheeked bee-eater has the longest wings of all 19 analysed species, it is not a significant outlier in terms of the wing length to weight ratio (t = − 0.62, p = 0.54). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Blue-cheeked bee-eater is morphologically adapted to hunting dragonflies by having exceptionally long wings in relation to body weight, as was previously suggested (Fry 1984). Furthermore, the longer wings observed in some bee-eater species are most likely related to migration strategy rather than hunting specialisation. In general, wing length is positively correlated with migration distance in several bird taxa (Nowakowski et al. 2014). The European and Blue-cheeked bee-eaters (the two species with the longest wings) are both long-distance migrants and are the two bee-eater species that breed furthest from the equator (Fry 1984).
Fig.1

Relationship between wing length and weight for 20 species of bee-eaters (male measures). Dashed line represents the linear regression line (slope = 0.48, intercept = − 21.7, R2 = 0.90, p < 0.001). Data from Fry et al. (1992). Silhouettes of wing shapes from Fry (1984) are also depicted in the plot

We conclude that the Blue-cheeked bee-eater cannot be universally defined as a “dragonfly eater”, as individual populations are more or less specialised to different types of prey. Some populations have a large proportion of dragonflies in the diet, while others seem to be specialised on other food sources, including bees, mosquitoes and butterflies. Furthermore, the Blue-cheeked bee-eater is not an unexpectedly long-winged species in relation to its weight, as previously stated. We wish to emphasise the importance of continuously assessing old “truths” in ornithology using current literature, and we highlight the need to include broad sampling (in terms of geography and habitat variables) when making general statements about bird ecology. In this particular case, more studies are clearly needed in order to quantify the proportions of different prey types in the diet of M. persicus under different circumstances, as the seven studies cited here are not likely to provide an accurate representation of the entire species distribution.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Simon Kärvemo, Liviu G. Pârâu and Thorsten Krüger for constructive comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

References

  1. Araújo MS, Bolnick DI, Layman CA (2011) The ecological causes of individual specialisation. Ecol Lett 14:948–958.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01662.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borrett RP (1973) Notes on the food of some Rhodesian birds. Ostrich 44:145–148.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00306525.1973.9639153
  3. Britton P, Backhurst G (1980) Birds of East Africa: their habitat, status and distribution. East Africa Natural History Society, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  4. Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies: behaviour and ecology of Odonata. Harley, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  5. del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J (2001) Handbook of the birds of the world: mousebirds to hornbills, vol 6. Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  6. Devictor V et al (2010) Defining and measuring ecological specialization. J Appl Ecol 47:15–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01744.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fry CH (1981) The diet of large green bee-eaters Merops superciliosus supersp. and the question of bee-eaters fishing. Malimbus 3:31–38Google Scholar
  8. Fry CH (1984) The bee-eaters. T & AD Poyser Ltd, CaltonGoogle Scholar
  9. Fry CH, Fry K, Harris A (1992) Kingfishers, bee-eaters & rollers. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Glaiim MK (2014) Occurrence and status of bee-eaters, Merops spp. (Coraciiformes: Meropidae), and their attacks on honey bee colonies in Kerbala Province. Iraq J Apic Res 53:478–488.  https://doi.org/10.3896/ibra.1.53.4.04
  11. Holmes DA (1972) Bird notes from the plains south of Lake Chad, winter 1971–1972. Bull Niger Orn Soc 9:47–55Google Scholar
  12. Kopij G, Swardt DHD, Nuttall RN (2000) Diet of seven coraciiform species (Coraciiformes) in South Africa. Acta Ornithol 35:207–209.  https://doi.org/10.3161/068.035.0202
  13. Kossenko SM, Fry CH (1998) Competition and coexistence of the European bee-eater Merops apiaster and the Blue-cheeked bee-eater Merops persicus in Asia. IBIS 140:2–13Google Scholar
  14. Larsen TB (1992) Temporary prey-specialization on migrant butterflies by bluecheeked bee-eaters. Entomol Rec J Var 104:253–255Google Scholar
  15. Marniche F, Voisin J-F, Doumandji S, Aissaoui R, Bensai T (2007) Régime alimentaire du guêpier de perse Merops superciliosus dans le grand erg oriental algérien. Alauda 75:323–326Google Scholar
  16. Nowakowski JK, Szulc J, Remisiewicz M (2014) The further the flight, the longer the wing: relationship between wing length and migratory distance in Old World reed and bush warblers (Acrocephalidae and Locustellidae). Orn Fennica 91:178Google Scholar
  17. Werner TK, Sherry TW (1987) Behavioral feeding specialization in Pinaroloxias inornata, the “Darwin’s Finch” of Cocos Island, Costa Rica. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84:5506–5510Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and GeneticsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations