Worker piping in honey bees (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Apis mellifera</Emphasis>): the behavior of piping nectar foragers

This study investigates the brief piping signals ("stop signals") of honey bee workers by exploring the context in which worker piping occurs and the identity and behavior of piping workers. Piping was stimulated reliably by promoting a colony's nectar foraging activity, demonstrating a causal connection between worker piping and nectar foraging. Comparison of the behavior of piping versus non-piping nectar foragers revealed many differences, e.g., piping nectar foragers spent more time in the hive, started to dance earlier, spent more time dancing, and spent less time on the dance floor. Most piping signals (approximately 99%) were produced by tremble dancers, yet not all (approximately 48%) tremble dancers piped, suggesting that the short piping signal and the tremble dance have related, but not identical, functions in the nectar foraging communication system. Our observations of the location and behavior of piping tremble dancers suggest that the brief piping signal may (1) retard recruitment to a low-quality food source, and (2) help to enhance the recruitment success of the tremble dance.     

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     

Vibrational signals in the tremble dance of the honeybee,Apis mellifera

Summary The tremble dance is a behavior sometimes performed by honeybee foragers returning to the hive. The biological significance of this behavior was unclear until Seeley (1992) demonstrated that tremble dances occur mainly when a colony's nectar influx is so high that the foragers must undertake lenghty searches in order to find food storers to unload their nectar. He suggested that tremble dancing has the effect of stimulating additional bees to function as food-storers, thereby raising the colony's capacity for processing nectar. Here I describe vibrational signals emitted by the tremble dancers. Simulation experiments with artificial tremble dance sounds revealed that these sounds inhibited dancing and reduced recruitment to feeding sites. The results suggest that the tremble dance is a negative feedback system counterbalancing the positive feedback of recruitment by waggle dances. Thus, the tremble dance seems to affect not only the colony's nectar processing rate, but also its nectar intake rate.     

The tremble dance of the honey bee: message and meanings

Summary The nectar foragers of a honey bee colony, upon return to the hive, sometimes perform a mysterious behavior called the tremble dance. In performing this dance, a forager shakes her body back and forth, at the same time rotating her body axis by about 50° every second or so, all the while walking slowly across the comb. During the course of a dance, which on average lasts 30 min, the bee travels about the broodnest portion of the hive. It is shown experimentally that a forager will reliably perform this dance if she visits a highly profitable nectar source but upon return to the hive experiences great difficulty finding a food-storer bee to take her nectar. This suggests that the message of the tremble dance is I have visited a rich nectar source worthy of greater exploitation, but already we have more nectar coming into the hive than we can handle. It is also shown experimentally that the performance of tremble dances is followed quickly by a rise in a colony's nectar processing capacity and (see Nieh, in press and Kirchner, submitted) by a drop in a colony's recruitment of additional bees to nectar sources. These findings suggest that the tremble dance has multiple meanings. For bees working inside the hive, its meaning is apparently I should switch to the task of processing nectar, while for bees working outside the hive (gathering nectar), its meaning is apparently I should refrain from recruiting additional foragers to my nectar source. Hence it appears that the tremble dance functions as a mechanism for keeping a colony's nectar processing rate matched with its nectar intake rate at times of greatly increased nectar influx. Evidently the tremble dance restores this match in part by stimulating a rise in the processing rate, and in part by inhibiting any further rise in the intake rate. Correspondence to: T. Seeley     

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     

Honey bee foragers as sensory units of their colonies

Forager honey bees function not only as gatherers of food for their colonies, but also as sensory units shaped by natural selection to gather information regarding the location and profitability of forage sites. They transmit this information to colony members by means of waggle dances. To investigate the way bees transduce the stimulus of nectar-source profitability into the response of number of waggle runs, I performed experiments in which bees were stimulated with a sucrose solution feeder of known profitability and their dance responses were videorecorded. The results suggest that several attributes of this transduction process are adaptations to enhance a bee's effectiveness in reporting on a forage site. (1) Bees register the profitability of a nectar source not by sensing the energy gain per foraging trip or the rate of energy gain per trip, but evidently by sensing the energetic efficiency of their foraging. Perhaps this criterion of nectar-source profitability has been favored by natural selection because the foraging gains of honey bees are typically limited by energy expenditure rather than time availability. (2) There is a linear relationship between the stimulus of energetic efficiency of foraging and the response of number of waggle runs per dance. Such a simple stimulus-response function appears adequate because the range of suprathreshold stimuli (max/min ratio of about 10) is far smaller than the range of responses (max/min ratio of about 100). Although all bees show a linear stimulus-response function, there are large differences among individuals in both the response threshold and the slope of the stimulus-response function. This variation gives the colony a broader dynamic range in responding to food sources than if all bees had identical thresholds of dance response. (3) There is little or no adaptation in the dance response to a strong stimulus (tonic response). Thus each dancing bee reports on the current level of profitability of her forage site rather than the changes in its profitability. This seems appropriate since presumably it is the current profitability of a forage site, not the change in its profitability, which determines a site's attractiveness to other bees. (4) The level of forage-site quality that is the threshold for dancing is tuned by the bees in relation to forage availability. Bees operate with a lower dance threshold when forage is sparse than when it is abundant. Thus a colony utilizes input about a wide range of forage sites when food is scarce, but filters out input about low-reward sites when food is plentiful. (5) A dancing bee does not present her information in one spot within the hive but instead distributes it over much of the dance floor. Consequently, the dances for different forage sites are mixed together on the dance floor. This helps each bee following the dances to take a random sample of the dance information, which is appropriate for the foraging strategy of a honey bee colony since it is evidently designed to allocate foragers among forage sites in proportion to their profitability.     

Why do honey-bee (Apis millifera) foragers transfer nectar to several receivers? Information improvement through multiple sampling in a biological system

The task of nectar foraging in honey-bees is partitioned between foragers and receivers. Foragers typically transfer a nectar load in the nest as sub-loads to several receivers rather than as a single transfer. Foragers experience delays in finding receivers and use these delays to balance the number of foragers and receivers. A short delay results in the forager-recruiting waggle dance whereas a long delay results in the receiver-recruiting tremble dance. Several nectar transfers increase the cost of this system by introducing additional delays in finding extra receivers. We tested four hypotheses to explain the occurrence of multiple transfer. We found no evidence that multiple transfer is due to different crop capacities of foragers and receivers or that it results from extensive trophallactic interactions with nest-mates. Receiver bees frequently evaporate nectar in their mouthparts to hasten the production of honey. The suggestion has been made that multiple transfer is driven by receivers who take partial loads from foragers to enhance nectar evaporation. An alternative suggestion is that foragers drive multiple transfer to gain better information on the balance of foragers and receivers. Multiple sampling of the delay in finding a receiver reduces the standard deviation of the delay mean and so provides foragers with better information than is provided by a single delay. The enhanced-evaporation hypothesis predicts that receivers break foragers' first transfer whereas the information improvement hypothesis predicts foragers break their first transfers. Furthermore, only the information improvement hypothesis predicts a high level of multiple receptions. Data on transfer break-off and receiver behaviour strongly support the information improvement hypothesis and reject the enhanced-evaporation hypothesis. We suggest that multiple transfer is an adaptive sampling mechanism, which improves foragers' information on colony work allocation, and that multiple sampling is a common feature of social insect societies.     

The honey bee shaking signal: function and design of a modulatory communication signal

This study explores the meaning and functional design of a modulatory communication signal, the honey bee shaking signal, by addressing five questions: (I) who shakes, (II) when do they shake, (III) where do they shake, (IV) how do receivers respond to shaking, and (V) what conditions trigger shaking. Several results confirm the work of Schneider (1987) and Schneider et al. (1986a): (I) most shakers were foragers (at least 83%); (II) shaking exhibited a consistent temporal pattern with bees producing the most signals in the morning (0810–1150 hours) just prior to a peak in waggle dancing activity; and (IV) bees moved faster (by 75%) after receiving a shaking signal. However, this study differs from previous work by providing a long-term, temporal, spatial, and vector analysis of individual shaker behavior. (III) Bees producing shaking signals walked and delivered signals in all areas of the hive, but produced the most shaking signals directly above the waggle dance floor. (IV) Bees responded to the signal by changing their direction of movement. Prior to receiving a signal, bees selected from the waggle dance floor moved, on average, towards the hive exit. After receiving a signal, some bees continued moving towards the exit but others moved directly away from the exit. During equivalent observation periods, non-shaken bees exhibited a strong tendency to move towards the hive exit. (V) Renewed foraging activity after food dearth triggered shaking signals, and, the level of shaking is positively correlated with the duration of food dearth. However, shaking signal levels also increased in the morning before foraging had begun and in the late afternoon after foraging had ceased. This spontaneous afternoon peak has not previously been reported. The shaking signal consequently appears to convey the general message “reallocate labor to different activities” with receiver context specifying a more precise meaning. In the context of foraging, the shaking signal appears to activate (and perhaps deactivate) colony foraging preparations. The generally weak response elicited by modulatory signals such as the shaking signal may result from a high receiver response threshold which allows the receiver to integrate multiple sources of information and which thereby increases the probability that receiver actions will be appropriate to colony needs. Received: 21 March 1997 / Accepted after revision: 30 August 1997     

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     

The causes of the tremble dance of the honeybee,Apis mellifera

Tremble dances are sometimes performed by returning forager bees instead of waggle dances. Recent studies by Seeley (1992) and Kirchner (1993) have revealed that this behaviour is part of the recruitment communication system of bees. The ultimate cause of tremble dances is, according to Seeley (1992), an imbalance between the nectar intake rate and the nectar processing capacity of the colony. This imbalance is correlated with a long initial search time of returning foragers to find bees to unload them. However, it remained unclear whether a long search time is the direct proximate cause of tremble dancing. Here we report that a variety of experimental conditions can elicit tremble dances. All of them have in common that the total search time that foragers spend searching for unloaders, until they are fully unloaded, is prolonged. This finding supports and extends the hypothesis that a long search time is the proximate cause of tremble dancing. The results also confirm the previous reports of Lindauer (1948) and others about factors eliciting tremble dancing.     

Directional change in a suite of foraging behaviors in tropical and temperate evolved honey bees (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Apis mellifera</Emphasis> L.)

The concept of a suite of foraging behaviors was introduced as a set of traits showing associative directional change as a characterization of adaptive evolution. I report how naturally selected differential sucrose response thresholds directionally affected a suite of honey bee foraging behaviors. Africanized and European honey bees were tested for their proboscis extension response thresholds to ascending sucrose concentrations, reared in common European colonies and, captured returning from their earliest observed foraging flight. Race constrained sucrose response threshold such that Africanized bees had significantly lower sucrose response thresholds. A Cox proportional hazards regression model of honey bee race and sucrose response threshold indicated that Africanized bees were 29% (P<0.01) more at risk to forage over the 30-day experimental period. Sucrose response threshold organized age of first foraging such that each unit decrease in sucrose response threshold increased risk to forage by 14.3% (P<0.0001). Africanized bees were more likely to return as pollen and water foragers than European foragers. Africanized foragers returned with nectar that was significantly less concentrated than European foragers. A comparative analysis of artificial and naturally selected populations with differential sucrose response thresholds and the common suite of directional change in foraging behaviors is discussed. A suite of foraging behaviors changed with a change in sucrose response threshold that appeared as a product of functional ecological adaptation.Communicated by R.F.A. Moritz     

Honeybee foragers adjust crop contents before leaving the hive

Upon leaving the hive, foragers carry a small amount of honey, which they subsequently consume to generate energy for flight. We investigated the relationship between waggle-phase duration and crop volume in foragers (both dancers and dance followers) leaving the hive. Our findings indicate that these variables were positively correlated in the two types of bee, suggesting that they were able to adjust the amount of food that they carry depending on the distance to a food source. We also found that dance followers left the hive with a larger amount of honey than dancers. We suggest two possible explanations: (1) dance followers have less information about the location of the food source than dancers, who have a better knowledge of the surrounding area; or (2) honeybees lack a precise calibration method for estimating energy needs from waggle-run duration. The effect of foraging experience was confirmed: bees decreased their honey load at departure with repeated trips to a sugar-syrup feeder. Honeybees showed a different pattern of change when the feeder provided soybean flour as a pollen substitute, possibly because honeybees use honey not only as an energy source but also as “glue” to form “balls” of pollen on their hind legs. Based on our observations that followers of sugar-syrup foragers carry a different amount of honey in their crop than followers of soybean-followers, we suggest that waggle dancers also convey information concerning food type.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Honeybees modify gustatory responsiveness after receiving nectar from foragers within the hive

Food quality is a relevant characteristic to be transferred within eusocial insect colonies because its evaluation improves the collective foraging efficiency. In honeybees, colony mates could directly acquire this resource characteristic during trophallactic encounters with nectar foragers. In the present study, we focused on the gustatory responsiveness of bees that have unloaded food from incoming foragers. The sugar sensitivity of receiver bees was assessed in the laboratory by using the proboscis extension response paradigm. After unloading, hive bees were captured either from a colony that foraged freely in the environmental surroundings or from a colony that foraged at an artificial feeder with a known sucrose solution. In the first situation, the sugar sensitivity of the hive bees negatively correlated with the sugar concentration of the nectar crops brought back by forager mates. Similarly, in the controlled situation, the highest sucrose concentration the receivers accepted during trophallaxis corresponded to the highest thresholds to sucrose. The results indicate that first-order receivers modify their sugar sensitivity according to the quality of the food previously transferred through trophallaxis by the incoming foragers. In addition, trophallaxis is a mechanism capable of transferring gustatory information in honeybees. Its implications at a social scale might involve changes in the social information as well as in nectar distribution within the colony.     

Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colony's nutritional status

Summary A honey bee colony operates as a tightly integrated unit of behavioral action. One manifestation of this in the context of foraging is a colony's ability to adjust its selectivity among nectar sources in relation to its nutritional status. When a colony's food situation is good, it exploits only highly profitable patches of flowers, but when its situation is poor, a colony's foragers will exploit both highly profitable and less profitable flower patches. The nectar foragers in a colony acquire information about their colony's nutritional status by noting the difficulty of finding food storer bees to receive their nectar, rather than by evaluating directly the variables determining their colony's food situation: rate of nectar intake and amount of empty storage comb. (The food storer bees in a colony are the bees that collect nectar from returning foragers and store it in the honey combs. They are the age group (generally 12–18 day old bees) that is older than the nurse bees but younger than the foragers. Food storers make up approximately 20% of a colony members.) The mathematical theory for the behavior of queues indicates that the waiting time experienced by nectar foragers before unloading to food storers (queue length) is a reliable and sensitive indicator of a colony's nutritional status. Queue length is automatically determined by the ratio of two rates which are directly related to a colony's nutritional condition: the rate of arrival of loaded nectar foragers at the hive (arrival rate) and the rate of arrival of empty food storers at the nectar delivery area (service rate). These two rates are a function of the colony's nectar intake rate and its empty comb area, respectively. Although waiting time conveys crucial information about the colony's nutritional status, it has not been molded by natural selection to serve this purpose. Unlike signals, which are evolved specifically to convey information, this cue conveys information as an automatic by-product. Such cues may prove more important than signals in colony integration.     

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     

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     

Comparisons of forager distributions from matched honey bee colonies in suburban environments

We conducted experiments designed to examine the distribution of foraging honey bees (Apis mellifera) in suburban environments with rich floras and to compare spatial patterns of foraging sites used by colonies located in the same environment. The patterns we observed in resource visitation suggest a reduced role of the recruitment system as part of the overall colony foraging strategy in habitats with abundant, small patches of flowers. We simultaneously sampled recruitment dances of bees inside observation hives in two colonies over 4 days in Miami, Florida (1989) and from two other colonies over five days in Riverside, California (1991). Information encoded in the dance was used to determine the distance and direction that bees flew from the hive for pollen and nectar and to construct foraging maps for each colony. The foraging maps showed that bees from the two colonies in each location usually foraged at different sites, but occasionally they visited the same patches of flowers. Each colony shifted foraging effort among sites on different days. In both locations, the mean flight distances differed between colonies and among days within colonies. The flight distances observed in our study are generally shorter than those reported in a similar study conducted in a temperate deciduous forest where resources were less dense and floral patches were smaller.