The regulation of pollen foraging by honey bees: how foragers assess the colony's need for pollen

Summary The honey bee colony presents a challenging paradox. Like an organism, it functions as a coherent unit, carefully regulating its internal milieu. But the colony consists of thousands of loosely assembled individuals each functioning rather autonomously. How, then, does the colony acquire the necessary information to organize its work force? And how do individuals acquire information about specific colony needs, and thus know what tasks need be performed? I address these questions through experiments that analyze how honey bees acquire information about the colony's need for pollen and how they regulate its collection. The results demonstrate features of the colony's system for regulating pollen foraging: (1) Pollen foragers quickly acquire new information about the colony's need for pollen. (2) When colony pollen stores are supplemented, many pollen foragers respond by switching to nectar foraging or by remaining in the hive and ceasing to forage at all. (3) Pollen foragers do not need direct contact with pollen to sense the colony's change of state, nor do they use the odor of pollen as a cue to assess the colony's need for pollen. (4) Pollen foragers appear to obtain their information about colony pollen need indirectly from other bees in the hive. (5) The information takes the form of an inhibitory cue. The proposed mechanism for the regulation of pollen foraging involves a hierarchical system of information acquisition and a negative feedback loop. By taking advantage of the vast processing capacity of large numbers of individuals working in parallel, such a system of information acquisition and dissemination may be ideally suited to promote efficient regulation of labor within the colony. Although each individual relies on only limited, local information, the colony as a whole achieves a finely-tuned response to the changing conditions it experiences.     

Social foraging in stingless bees: how colonies of Melipona fasciata choose among nectar sources

In an experimental set-up, a colony of the stingless bee Melipona fasciata demonstrated its ability to choose the better of two nectar sources. This colony pattern was a result of the following individual behavioural decisions: continue foraging, abandon the feeder, restart foraging and initiate foraging. Only very rarely did individuals switch from one feeder to the other. With the first combination of a rich (2.7 M) and a poor (0.8 M) feeder M. fasciata behaved differently from Apis mellifera. Recruitment occurred to both feeders and the poor feeder was not abandoned completely. When the poor feeder was set to 0.4 M, M. fasciata abandoned the poor feeder rapidly and allocated more foragers to the rich feeder. These patterns were similar to those reported for A. mellifera with the first combination of feeders. Over a sequence of 4 days, experienced bees increasingly determined the colony patterns, and the major function of communication between workers became the reactivation of experienced foragers. The foragers modulated their behaviour not only according to the profitability of the feeder, but also according to previous experience with profitability switches. Thus, experience and communication together regulated colony foraging behaviour. These findings and the results of studies with honeybees suggest that M. fasciata and honeybees use similar decision-making mechanisms and only partly different tools. Received: 21 December 1998 / Accepted: 5 January 1999     

Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources

Summary A honey bee colony can skillfully choose among nectar sources. It will selectively exploit the most profitable source in an array and will rapidly shift its foraging efforts following changes in the array. How does this colony-level ability emerge from the behavior of individual bees? The answer lies in understanding how bees modulate their colony's rates of recruitment and abandonment for nectar sources in accordance with the profitability of each source. A forager modulates its behavior in relation to nectar source profitability: as profitability increases, the tempo of foraging increases, the intensity of dancing increases, and the probability of abandoning the source decreases. How does a forager assess the profitability of its nectar source? Bees accomplish this without making comparisons among nectar sources. Neither do the foragers compare different nectar sources to determine the relative profitability of any one source, nor do the food storers compare different nectar loads and indicate the relative profitability of each load to the foragers. Instead, each forager knows only about its particular nectar source and independently calculates the absolute profitability of its source. Even though each of a colony's foragers operates with extremely limited information about the colony's food sources, together they will generate a coherent colonylevel response to different food sources in which better ones are heavily exploited and poorer ones are abandoned. This is shown by a computer simulation of nectar-source selection by a colony in which foragers behave as described above. Nectar-source selection by honey bee colonies is a process of natural selection among alternative nectar sources as foragers from more profitable sources survive (continue visiting their source) longer and reproduce (recruit other foragers) better than do foragers from less profitable sources. Hence this colonial decision-making is based on decentralized control. We suggest that honey bee colonies possess decentralized decision-making because it combines effectiveness with simplicity of communication and computation within a colony. Offprint requests to: T.D. Seeley     

Central-place foraging in honey bees: the effect of travel time and nectar flow on crop filling

Summary Crop-filling by honeybees foraging at sources of variable nectar flow at a fixed distance from the hive has been shown to maximize energetic efficiency, defined as ratio of energy gained to energy spent. Predictions based on maximisation of rate of energy gain, defined as net energy gained per unit time foraging, are significantly different from observed behaviour (Schmid-Hempel et al. 1985). In this paper we consider the effect of varying travel times in addition to flow rate. The predictions of an extended version of our theoretical model are confronted with experimental results obtained by Núñez (1982). Núñez found that bees filled their crops more fully for higher flows and longer travel times. We show that when the cost of carrying a load is considered, this trend can be predicted by maximising either energetic efficiency or net rate of gain. Figure 1 shows, however, that maximisation of net rate of gain can only produce an acceptable quantitative fit if unreasonably high costs are assumed to result from carrying the load. Energetic efficiency instead generates a good quantitative fit for acceptable assumptions about this cost (Fig. 2).     

Social foraging by honeybees: how colonies allocate foragers among patches of flowers

Summary To understand how a colony of honeybees keeps its forager force focussed on rich sources of food, and analysis was made of how the individual foragers within a colony decide to abandon or continue working (and perhaps even recruit to) patches of flowers. A nectar forager grades her behavior toward a patch in response to both the nectar intake rate of her colony and the quality of her patch. This results in the threshold in patch quality for acceptance of a patch being higher when the colonial intake rate of nectar is high than when it is low. Thus colonies can adjust their patch selectivity so that they focus on rich sources when forage is abundant, but spread their workers among a wider range of sources when forage is scarce. Foragers assess their colony's rate of nectar intake while in the nest, unloading nectar to receiver bees. The ease of unloading varies inversely with the colonial intake rate of nectar. Foragers assess patch quality while in the field, collecting nectar. By grading their behavior steeply in relation to such patch variables as distance from the nest and nectar sweetness, foragers give their colony high sensitivity to differences in profitability among patches. When a patch's quality declines, its foragers reduce their rate of visits to the patch. This diminishes the flow of nectar from the poor patch which in turn stimulates recruitment to rich patches. Thus a colony can swiftly redistribute its forager force following changes in the spatial distribution of rich food sources. The fundamental currency of nectar patch quality is not net rate of energy intake, (Gain-Cost)/Time, but may be net energy efficiency, (Gain-Cost)/Cost.     

Tactics of dance choice in honey bees: do foragers compare dances?

Summary (1) When a honey bee follows recruitment dances to locate a new food source, does she sample multiple dances representing different food sources and selectively respond to the strongest dance? (2) Several initial findings suggested that foragers might indeed compare dances. First, dance information is arrayed in the hive in a way that facilitates comparison-making: dances for different flower patches are performed close together in time and space. Second, food-source quality is coded in the dances, in terms of dance length (number of circuits per dance). Third, dances to natural food sources vary in length by more than 2 orders of magnitude, indicating that the quality of natural food sources varies greatly. Fourth, foragers seeking a new food source follow several dances before exiting the hive (though only one dance is followed closely). (3) Nevertheless, a critical test for comparison-making revealed that foragers evidently do not compare dances. A colony was given two feeders that were equidistant from the hive but different in profitability. If foragers do not compare dances, then the proportion of recruits arriving at the richer feeder should match the proportion of dance circuits for the richer feeder. This is the pattern that we found in all 11 trials of the experiment. (4) We suggest that the reason foragers do not compare dances is that a colony's foraging success is greater if its foragers distribute themselves among the various food sources being advertised in the hive than if they crowd themselves on the one, best source. (5) Food-source selection by honey bee colonies is a democratic decision-making process. This study reveals that this selection process is organized to function effectively even though each member of the democracy possesses incomplete information about the available choices. Offprint requests to: T.D. Seeley     

The use of waggle dance information by honey bees throughout their foraging careers

We studied the extent to which worker honey bees acquire information from waggle dances throughout their careers as foragers. Small groups of foragers were monitored from time of orientation flights to time of death and all in-hive behaviors relating to foraging were recorded. In the context of a novice forager finding her first food source, 60% of the bees relied, at least in part, on acquiring information from waggle dances (being recruited) rather than searching independently (scouting). In the context of an experienced forager whose foraging has been interrupted, 37% of the time the bees resumed foraging by following waggle dances (being reactivated) rather than examining the food source on their own (inspecting). And in the context of an experienced forager engaged in foraging, 17% of the time the bees initiated a foraging trip by following a waggle dance. Such dance following was observed much more often after an unsuccessful than after a successful foraging trip. Successful foragers often followed dances just briefly, perhaps to confirm that the kind of flowers they had been visiting were still yielding forage. Overall, waggle dance following for food discovery accounted for 12–25% of all interactions with dancers (9% by novice foragers and 3–16% by experienced foragers) whereas dance following for reactivation and confirmation accounted for the other 75–88% (26% for reactivation and 49–62% for confirmation). We conclude that foragers make extensive use of the waggle dance not only to start work at new, unfamiliar food sources but also to resume work at old, familiar food sources.     

Worker allocation in insect societies: coordination of nectar foragers and nectar receivers in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies

Nectar collection in the honey-bee is partitioned. Foragers collect nectar and take it to the nest, where they transfer it to receiver bees who then store it in cells. Because nectar is a fluctuating and unpredictable resource, changes in worker allocation are required to balance the work capacities of foragers and receivers so that the resource is exploited efficiently. Honey bee colonies use a complex system of signals and other feedback mechanisms to coordinate the relative and total work capacities of the two groups of workers involved. We present a functional evaluation of each of the component mechanisms used by honey bees – waggle dance, tremble dance, stop signal, shaking signal and abandonment – and analyse how their interplay leads to group-level regulation. We contrast the actual regulatory system of the honey bee with theory. The tremble dance conforms to predicted best use of information, where the group in excess applies negative feedback to itself and positive feedback to the group in shortage, but this is not true of the waggle dance. Reasons for this and other discrepancies are discussed. We also suggest reasons why honey bees use a combination of recruitment plus abandonment and not switching between subtasks, which is another mechanism for balancing the work capacities of foragers and receivers. We propose that the waggle and tremble dances are the primary regulation mechanisms, and that the stop and shaking signals are secondary mechanisms, which fine-tune the system. Fine-tuning is needed because of the inherent unreliability of the cues, queueing delays, which foragers use to make recruitment decisions. Received: 15 December 1998 / Received in revised form: 6 March 1999 / Accepted: 12 March 1999     

Brood pheromone stimulates pollen foraging in honey bees (Apis mellifera)

Foraging and the mechanisms that regulate the quantity of food collected are important evolutionary and ecological attributes for all organisms. The decision to collect pollen by honey bee foragers depends on the number of larvae (brood), amount of stored pollen in the colony, as well as forager genotype and available resources in the environment. Here we describe how brood pheromone (whole hexane extracts of larvae) influenced honey bee pollen foraging and test the predictions of two foraging-regulation hypotheses: the indirect or brood-food mechanism and the direct mechanism of pollen-foraging regulation. Hexane extracts of larvae containing brood pheromone stimulated pollen foraging. Colonies were provided with extracts of 1000 larvae (brood pheromone), 1000 larvae (brood), or no brood or pheromone. Colonies with brood pheromone and brood had similar numbers of pollen foragers, while those colonies without brood or pheromone had significantly fewer pollen foragers. The number of pollen foragers increased more than 2.5-fold when colonies were provided with extracts of 2000 larvae as a supplement to the 1000 larvae they already had. Within 1 h of presenting colonies with brood pheromone, pollen foragers responded to the stimulus. The results from this study demonstrate some important aspects of pollen foraging in honey bee colonies: (1) pollen foragers appear to be directly affected by brood pheromone, (2) pollen foraging can be stimulated with brood pheromone in colonies provided with pollen but no larvae, and (3) pollen forager numbers increase with brood pheromone as a supplement to brood without increasing the number of larvae in the colony. These results support the direct-stimulus hypothesis for pollen foraging and do not support the indirect-inhibitor, brood-food hypothesis for pollen-foraging regulation. Received: 5 March 1998 / Accepted after revision: 29 August 1998     

How habitat affects the benefits of communication in collectively foraging honey bees

Honey bees (Apis mellifera) use the dance language to symbolically convey information about the location of floral resources from within the nest. To figure out why this unique ability evolved, we need to understand the benefits it offers to the colony. Previous studies have shown that, in fact, the location information in the dance is not always beneficial. We ask, in which ecological habitats do honey bee colonies actually benefit from the dance language, and what is it about those habitats that makes communication useful? In this study, we examine the effects of floral distribution patterns on the benefits of dance communication across five different habitats. In each habitat, we manipulated colonies' ability to communicate and measured their foraging success, while simultaneously characterizing the naturally occurring floral distribution. We find that communication is most beneficial when floral species richness is high and patches contain many flowers. These are ecological features that could have helped shape the evolution of the honey bee dance language.     

Food-exchange by foragers in the hive – a means of communication among honey bees?

Dancing and trophallactic behaviour of forager honey bees, Apis mellifera ligustica >Spinola, that returned from an automatic feeder with a regulated flow rate of 50% weight-to-weight sucrose solution (range: 0.76–7.65 μl/min) were studied in an observation hive. Behavioural parameters of dancing, such as probability, duration and dance tempo, increased with the nectar flow rate, though with very different response curves among bees. For trophallaxis (i.e. mouth-to-mouth exchange of food), the frequency of giving-contacts and the transfer rate of the nectar increased with the nectar flow rate. After unloading, foragers often approached other nest mates and begged for food before returning to the food source. This behaviour was less frequent at higher nectar flow rates. These results show that the profitability of a food source in terms of nectar flow rate had a quantitative representation in the hive through quantitative changes in trophallactic and dancing behaviour. The role of trophallaxis as a communication channel during recruitment is discussed. Received: 14 January 1995/Accepted after revision: 14 August 1995     

Intra-colonial foraging specialism by honey bees (Apis mellifera) (Hymenoptera:Apidae)

Summary Colonies of honey bees with two identifiable subfamilies were established. Returning foragers were captured and killed at two different sampling times. The mean volume and per cent soluble solids of crop contents were determined for each subfamily, as was the mean weight of the pollen pellets. No significant differences in nectar volume or concentration were detected between subfamilies within colonies. However, in a few colonies, significant subfamily by sampling-time interactions were present, suggesting that in these colonies subfamilies differed in their nectar and pollen collecting behavior at different times of day. The plant genera worked by pollen foragers were also determined. In four of six colonies, bees of different subfamilies were found to be majoring on different plant species (Fig. 1). Implications of this intra-colonial variance in foraging behavior for colony fitness are discussed. Offprint requests to: B.P. Oldroyd     

The communal crop: modulation of sucrose response thresholds of pre-foraging honey bees with incoming nectar quality

We examined whether the quality (concentration) of incoming sucrose solutions returned by foraging honey bees affected the response thresholds of pre-foraging members of the colony. Six pairs of colonies were given ad libitum access to sucrose solution feeders. A colony from each pair was switched from 20–50% sugar concentration feeders while the other continued to have access to 20% sucrose feeders. Proboscis extension response (PER) scores to an increasing series of sucrose concentrations were significantly higher in pre-foragers of colonies foraging on 20% sucrose throughout compared to pre-foragers in colonies where foraging was switched to 50% sucrose. Although all colonies had honey stores, the concentration of sugar solution in non-foraging bees crops were significantly lower in bees from colonies foraging on 20% sucrose compared to those from colonies foraging on 50% sucrose. Because response thresholds to sugar of young bees were modulated by the concentration of sucrose solution returned to colonies, we repeated the 2000 study of Pankiw and Page that potentially confounded baseline response thresholds with modulated scores due to experience in the colony. Here, we examined PER scores to sucrose in bees within 6 h of emergence, prior to feeding experience, and their forage choice 2 to 3 weeks later. Pollen foragers had higher PER scores as newly emerged bees compared to bees that eventually became nectar foragers. These results confirm those of the 2000 study by Pankiw and Page. Combined, these experiments demonstrate that variation in pre-forager sucrose response thresholds are established prior to emerging as adults but may be modulated by incoming resources later on. Whether this modulation has long-term effects on foraging behavior is unknown but modulation has short-term effects and the potential to act as a means of communication among all bees in the colony.Communicated by M. Giurfa     

The honey bee’s tremble dance stimulates additional bees to function as nectar receivers

If a forager bee returns to her hive laden with high-quality nectar but then experiences difficulty finding a receiver bee to unload her, she will begin to produce a conspicuous communication signal called the tremble dance. The context in which this signal is produced suggests that it serves to stimulate more bees to function as nectar receivers, but so far there is no direct evidence of this effect. We now report an experiment which shows that more bees do begin to function as nectar receivers when foragers produce tremble dances. When we stimulated the production of tremble dances in a colony and counted the number of bees engaged in nectar reception before and after the period of intense tremble dancing, we found a dramatic increase. In two trials, the number of nectar receivers rose from 17% of the colony’s population before tremble dancing to 30–50% of the population after the dancing. We also investigated which bees become the additional nectar receivers, by looking at the age composition of the receiver bees before and after the period of intense tremble dancing. We found that none of the bees recruited to the task of nectar reception were old bees, most were middle-aged bees, and some were even young bees. It remains unclear whether these auxiliary nectar receivers were previously inactive (as a reserve supply of labor) or were previously active on other tasks. Overall, this study demonstrates that a honey bee colony is able to rapidly and strongly alter its allocation of labor to adapt to environmental changes, and it further documents one of the communication mechanisms underlying this ability. Received: 31 May 1996/Accepted after revision: 9 August 1996     

Net energetic advantage drives honey bees (Apis mellifera L) to nectar larceny in Vaccinium ashei Reade

Carpenter bees (Xylocopa spp.) act as primary nectar thieves in rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei Reade), piercing corollas laterally to imbibe nectar at basal nectaries. Honey bees (Apis mellifera L) learn to visit these perforations and thus become secondary nectar thieves. We tested the hypothesis that honey bees make this behavioral switch in response to an energetic advantage realized by nectar-robbing flower visits. Nectar volume and sugar quantity were higher in intact than perforated flowers, but bees (robbers) visiting perforated flowers were able to extract a higher percentage of available nectar and sugar so that absolute amount of sugar (mg) removed by one bee visit is the same for each flower type. However, because perforated flowers facilitate higher rates of bee flower visitation and the same or higher rates of nectar ingestion, they are rendered more profitable than intact flowers in temporal terms. Accordingly, net energy (J) gain per second flower handling time was higher for robbers on most days sampled. We conclude that the majority evidence indicates an energetic advantage for honey bees that engage in secondary nectar thievery in V. ashei.Communicated by R. Page     

Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Why is nectar left behind in flowers?

Summary Queen bumblebees (Bombus appositus) leave nectar behind in Delphinium nelsoni flowers with high-standing crops of nectar. Bumblebees deplete flowers in areas with lower-standing crops. Residual volumes predicted by an optimal feeding hypothesis agree with field measurements.     

The stop signal of honey bees: reconsidering its message

Summary The stop signal of honey bees has long been regarded as a vibrational begging signal produced by dance followers to elicit food from waggle dancers (Esch 1964). On the basis of playback experiments and behavioral analysis, this study presents the following evidence for a different signal function. Stop signals (1) can be produced by tremble dancers, dance followers, and waggle dancers; (2) rarely elicit trophallaxis; and (3) evidently cause waggle dancers to leave the dance floor. Subsequent work by Kirchner (submitted) using vibrational playback experiments confirms the latter observation. When the colony's food storers are temporarily overwhelmed by a large nectar influx, returning foragers will search for prolonged periods before unloading food and consequently begin to tremble dance (Seeley 1992). In this study, tremble dancers were the major producer of stop signals on the dance floor. The stop signal may thus retard recruitment until balance is restored.     

Colony nutritional status modulates worker responses to foraging recruitment pheromone in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris

Foraging activity in social insects should be regulated by colony nutritional status and food availability, such that both the emission of, and response to, recruitment signals depend on current conditions. Using fully automatic radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology to follow the foraging activity of tagged bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) during 16,000 foraging bouts, we tested whether the cue provided by stored food (the number of full honeypots) could modulate the response of workers to the recruitment pheromone signal. Artificial foraging pheromones were applied to colonies with varied levels of food reserves. The response to recruitment pheromones was stronger in colonies with low food, resulting in more workers becoming active and more foraging bouts being performed. In addition to previous reports showing that in colonies with low food successful foragers perform more excited runs during which they release recruitment pheromone and inactive workers are more prone to leave the nest following nectar influx, our results indicate that evolution has shaped a third pathway that modulates bumblebee foraging activity, thus preventing needless energy expenditure and exposure to risk when food stores are already high. This new feedback loop is intriguing since it involves context-dependent response to a signal. It highlights the integration of information from both forager-released pheromones (signal) and nutritional status (cue) that occurs within individual workers before making the decision to start foraging. Our results support the emerging view that responses to pheromones may be less hardwired than commonly acknowledged. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Reproductive conflict in honey bees: a stalemate of worker egg-laying and policing

 Using electrophoretic markers, eggs laid by workers were identified in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies with a queen. Based on extrapolation, these represented about 7% of the unfertilized (male) eggs laid in the colonies. A very small proportion of workers (of the order of 0.01%) lay these eggs. Worker-laid eggs are rapidly removed, so that very few sons of workers are reared. Thus the reproductive cooperation in bee colonies is maintained by ongoing antagonistic interactions among the members of the colony, with worker laying and egg removal policing by other workers being relatively common. Received: 24 November 1995/Accepted after revision: 25 May 1996