			Home About us Contact

Honey Bee Colonies (honey + bee_colony)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Life Sciences	83%

Selected Abstracts

In-Hive Behavior of Pollen Foragers (Apis mellifera) in Honey Bee Colonies Under Conditions of High and Low Pollen Need

ETHOLOGY, Issue 3 2002
Anja Weidenmüller
Pollen collection in honey bees is regulated around a homeostatic set-point. How the control of pollen collection is achieved is still unclear. Different feedback mechanisms have been proposed but little is known about the experience of pollen foragers in the hive. A detailed documentation of the behavior of pollen foragers in the hive under different pollen need conditions is presented here. Taking a broad observational approach, we analyze the behavior of individual pollen foragers in the hive between collecting trips and quantify the different variables constituting the in-hive stay. Comparing data from two colonies and 143 individuals during experimentally induced times of low vs. times of high pollen need, we show that individual foragers modulate their in-hive working tempo according to the actual pollen need of the colony: pollen foragers slowed down and stayed in the hive longer when pollen need was low and spent less time in the hive between foraging trips when pollen need by their colony was high. Furthermore, our data show a significant change in the trophallactic experience of pollen foragers with changing pollen need conditions of their colony. Pollen foragers had more short (< 3 s) trophallactic contacts when pollen need was high, resulting in an increase of total number of trophallactic contacts. Thus, our results support the hypothesis that trophallactic experience is one of the various information pathways used by pollen foragers to assess their colony's pollen need. [source]

Pollinator genetics and pollination: do honey bee colonies selected for pollen-hoarding field better pollinators of cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon?

ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY, Issue 2 2001
James H. Cane
Summary 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 four-fold 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' 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. [source]

Intra-Patriline Variability in the Performance of the Vibration Signal and Waggle Dance in the Honey Bee, Apis mellifera

ETHOLOGY, Issue 7 2008
Nhi Duong
We examined intra-patriline behavioral plasticity in communication behavior by generating lifetime behavioral profiles for the performance of the vibration signal and waggle dance in workers which were the progeny of three unrelated queens, each inseminated with the semen of a single, different drone. We found pronounced variability within each patriline for the tendency to produce each signal, the ontogeny of signal performance, and the persistence with which individual workers performed the signals throughout their lifetimes. Within each patriline, the number of workers that performed each signal and the distribution of onset ages for each signal were significantly different. In each patriline, workers of all ages could perform vibration signals; vibration signal production began 3,5 d before waggle dancing; and some workers began performing waggle dances at ages typically associated with precocious foraging. Most workers vibrated and waggled only 1,2 d during their lifetimes, although each patriline contained some workers that performed the signal persistently for up to 8 or 9 d. We also found marked variability in signal performance among the three worker lineages examined. Because the vibration signal and waggle dance influence task performance, variability in signaling behavior within and between subfamilies may help to organize information flow and collective labor in honey bee colonies. Inter-patriline variability may influence the total number of workers from different partrilines that perform the signals, whereas intra-patriline variability may further fine-tune signal performance and the allocation of labor to a given set of circumstances. Although intra-patriline behavioral variability is assumed to be widespread in the social insects, our study is the first to document the extent of this variability for honey bee communication signals. [source]

Intergenerational reproductive parasitism in a stingless bee

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY, Issue 19 2009
BENJAMIN P. OLDROYD
Insect colonies have been traditionally regarded as closed societies comprised of completely sterile workers ruled over by a single once-mated queen. However, over the past 15 years, microsatellite studies of parentage have revealed that this perception is far from the truth (Beekman & Oldroyd 2008). First, we learned that honey bee queens are far more promiscuous than we had previously imagined (Estoup et al. 1994), with one Apis dorsata queen clocked at over 100 mates (Wattanachaiyingcharoen et al. 2003). Then Oldroyd et al. (1994) reported a honey bee colony from Queensland, where virtually all the males were sons of a single patriline of workers , a clear case of a cheater mutant that promoted intra-colonial reproductive parasitism. Then we learned that both bumble bee colonies (Lopez-Vaamonde et al. 2004) and queenless honey bee colonies (Nanork et al. 2005, 2007) are routinely parasitized by workers from other nests that fly in and lay male-producing eggs that are then reared by the victim colony. There is even evidence that in a thelytokous honey bee population, workers lay female-destined eggs directly into queen cells, thus reincarnating themselves as a queen (Jordan et al. 2008). And let us not forget ants, where microsatellite studies have revealed equally bizarre and totally unexpected phenomena (e.g. Cahan & Keller 2003; Pearcy et al. 2004; Fournier et al. 2005). Now, in this issue, Alves et al. (2009) use microsatellites to provide yet another shocking and completely unexpected revelation about the nefarious goings-on in insect colonies: intergenerational reproductive parasitism by stingless bee workers. [source]

Experimental study on the toxicity of imidacloprid given in syrup to honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE (FORMERLY: PESTICIDE SCIENCE), Issue 2 2005
Jean-Paul Faucon
Abstract Two groups of eight honey bee colonies were fed with two different concentrations of imidacloprid in saccharose syrup during summer (each colony was given 1 litre of saccharose syrup containing 0.5 µg litre,1 or 5 µg litre,1 of imidacloprid on 13 occasions). Their development and survival were followed in parallel with control hives (unfed or fed with saccharose syrup) until the end of the following winter. The parameters followed were: adult bee activity (number of bee entering the hive and pollen carrying activity), adult bee population level, capped brood area, frequency of parasitic and other diseases, mortality, number of frames with brood after wintering and a global score of colonies after wintering. The only parameters linked to feeding with imidacloprid-supplemented saccharose syrup when compared with feeding with non-supplemented syrup were: a statistically non-significant higher activity index of adult bees, a significantly higher frequency of pollen carrying during the feeding period and a larger number of capped brood cells. When imidacloprid was no longer applied, activity and pollen carrying were re-established at a similar level for all groups. Repeated feeding with syrup supplemented with imidacloprid did not provoke any immediate or any delayed mortality before, during or following the next winter, whereas such severe effects are described by several French bee keepers as a consequence of imidacloprid use for seed dressing in neighbouring cultures. In any case, during the whole study, mortality was very low in all groups, with no difference between imidacloprid-fed and control colonies. Further research should now address several hypotheses: the troubles described by bee keepers have causes other than imidacloprid; if such troubles are really due to this insecticide, they may only be observed either when bees consume contaminated pollen, when no other sources of food are available, in the presence of synergic factors (that still need to be identified), with some particular races of bees or when colonies are not strong and healthy. Copyright © 2004 Society of Chemical Industry [source]