The control of water collection in honey bee colonies

A honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony adaptively controls the collection of water by its foragers, increasing it when high temperatures necesssitate evaporative cooling inside the hive and decreasing it when the danger of overheating passes. This study analyzes the mechanisms controlling water collection once it has begun, that is, how a colony's water collectors know whether to continue or stop their activity. M. Lindauer suggested that water collectors acquire information about their colony's need for more water by noting how easily they can unload their water to bees inside the hive. In support of this hypothesis, we found that a water collector's ease of unloading does indeed change when her colony's need for water changes. How does a water collector sense the ease of unloading? Multiple variables of the unloading experience change in relation to a colony's water need. Three time-based variables – initial search time, total search time, and delivery time – all change quite strongly. But what changes most strongly is the number of unloading rejections (refusals by receiver bees to take the water), suggesting that this is the primary index of ease of unloading. Why does a water collector's ease of unloading change when her colony's need for water changes? Evidently, what links these two variables is change in the number of water receivers. These are middle-aged bees that receive water just inside the hive entrance, then transport it deeper inside the hive, and finally smear it on the walls of cells or give it to other bees, or both. A colony increases the number of water receivers when its water need increases by having bees engaged in nectar reception and other tasks (and possibly also bees that are not working) switch to the task of water reception. Evidently the activation of additional water receivers does not strongly reduce the number of nectar receivers in a colony, since a colony can increase greatly its water collection without simultaneously decreasing its collection of rich nectar. This study provides a clear example of the way that the members of a social insect colony can use indirect indicators of their colony's labor needs to adaptively control the work that they perform.     

Division of labor between undertaker specialists and other middle-aged workers in honey bee colonies

A primary determinant of colony organization in temporally polyethic insect societies is inter-individual variation in behavior that is independent of worker age. We examined behavioral repertoires, behavioral correlates of adult development, and spatial distributions within the hive to explore the mechanisms that produce behavioral variation among middle-age honey bees (Apis mellifera). Individually labeled undertakers, guards, food storers, and wax workers exhibited a broad range of task-related behavior, but bees tagged as undertakers were more likely to subsequently remove a corpse from the hive and handle a corpse compared to other middle-aged bees. The activity level of undertakers was similar to other task groups, suggesting that undertaking specialists were neither hyper-active “elites” nor quiescent “reserves” that become active only when a dead bee stimulus is present. Undertakers also were more likely to remove debris and to remain in the lower region of the hive or near the entrance, even when not engaged in corpse removal; both preferences may promote colony efficiency by reducing inter-task travel times. Guards and undertakers were less likely to perform behavior normally associated with young bees compared to food storers and wax workers. Undertakers and guards also initiated foraging at earlier ages than the other task groups. These results suggest that undertakers and guards may be slightly developmentally advanced compared to food storers and wax workers. There also was evidence for lifetime differences in behavioral preferences which could not be explained by differences in adult development. Bees tagged as undertakers were more likely to subsequently remove a dead bee during their entire pre-foraging career compared to other task groups or members of their general age cohort. Differences in both the rate of adult development and individual behavioral preferences, both of which may be subject to genetic and environmental influences, are important determinants of inter-individual variation among honey bees of middle age. Received: 5 February 1997 / Accepted after revision: 27 May 1997     

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.     

Reproductive competition in queenless honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera L.)

Previously we reported that there are subfamily differences in drone production in queenless honey bee colonies, but these biases are not always explained by subfamily differences in oviposition behavior. Here we determine whether these puzzling results are best explained by either inadequate sampling of the laying worker population or reproductive conflict among workers resulting in differential treatment of eggs and larvae. Using colonies composed of workers from electrophoretically distinct subfamilies, we collected samples of adult bees engaged in the following behavior: true egg laying, false egg laying, indeterminate egg laying, egg cannibalism, or nursing (contact with larvae). We also collected samples of drone brood at four different ages: 0 to 2.5-h-old eggs, 0 to 24-h-old eggs, 3 to 8-day-old larvae, and 9 to 14-day-old larvae and pupae. Allozyme analyses revealed significant subfamily differences in the likelihood of exhibiting egg laying, egg cannibalism, and nursing behavior, as well as significant subfamily differences in drone production. There were no subfamily differences among the different types of laying workers collected from each colony, suggesting that discrepancies between subfamily biases in egg-laying behavior and drone production are not due to inadequate sampling of the laying worker population. Subfamily biases in drone brood production within a colony changed significantly with brood age. Laying workers had significantly more developed ovaries than either egg cannibals or nurses, establishing a physiological correlate for the observed behavioral genetic differences. These results suggest there is reproductive conflict among subfamilies and individuals within queenless colonies of honey bees. The implications of these results for the evolution of reproductive conflict, in both queenright and queenless contexts, are discussed.     

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.     

Timekeeping in the honey bee colony: integration of circadian rhythms and division of labor

The daily patterns of task performance in honey bee colonies during behavioral development were studied to determine the role of circadian rhythmicity in age-related division of labor. Although it is well known that foragers exhibit robust circadian patterns of activity in both field and laboratory settings, we report that many in-hive tasks are not allocated according to a daily rhythm but rather are performed 24 h per day. Around-the-clock activity at the colony level is accomplished through the performance of some tasks by individual workers randomly with respect to time of day. Bees are initially arrhythmic with respect to task performance but develop diel rhythmicity, by increasing the occurrence of inactivity at night, prior to becoming foragers. There are genotypic differences for age at onset of rhythmicity and our results suggest that these differences are correlated with genotypic variation in rate of behavioral development: genotypes of bees that progressed through the age polyethism schedule faster also acquired behavioral rhythmicity at an earlier age. The ontogeny of circadian rhythmicity in honey bee workers ensures that essential in-hive behaviors are performed around the clock but also allows the circadian clock to be engaged before the onset of foraging. Received: 6 October 1997 / Accepted after revision: 28 March 1998     

Condition-dependent response to changes in pollen stores by honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies with different parasitic loads

The impact of a parasitic infestation may be influenced by nutritional state, in both individuals and colonies. This study examined the interaction between pollen storage and the effects of an infestation by the mite, Varroa jacobsoni Oudemans, in colonies of the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. We manipulated the pollen storage and mite infestation levels of colonies, and measured pollen foraging and brood rearing. Increased pollen stores decreased both the number of pollen foragers and pollen load size, while initially at least foragers from colonies with moderate infestations carried smaller pollen loads than those from lightly infested colonies. Over the course of the experiment, all colonies significantly increased pollen-foraging rates and pollen consumption, which was presumably a seasonal effect. Lightly infested colonies exhibited a larger increase in pollen forager number than moderately infested colonies, suggesting that more intense mite infestations compromised forager recruitment. Brood production was not affected by the addition of pollen, but moderately infested colonies were rearing significantly less brood by the end of the experiment than lightly infested colonies. Furthermore, the efficiency with which colonies converted pollen to brood decreased as the pollen storage level decreased and the infestation level increased. The results of this study may indicate that honey bee colonies adaptively alter brood-production efficiency in response to parasitic infestations and seasonal changes. Received: 3 May 1999 / Received in revised form: 14 September 1999 / Accepted: 25 September 1999     

Optimal timing of comb construction by honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies: a dynamic programming model and experimental tests

Honeybee colonies, like organisms, should exhibit optimal design in their temporal pattern of resource allocation to somatic structures. A vital colony structure is the comb which stores honey for overwinter survival. However, the timing of comb construction poses a dilemma to a colony attempting to maximize its honey reserves. On the one hand, plenty of empty comb is needed for efficient exploitation of temporally unpredictable flower blooms. On the other hand, because comb is made from energetically expensive wax, its construction too early or in excessive amounts will reduce the amount of honey available for winter thermoregulation and brood-rearing. A dynamic optimization model concludes that colonies should add new comb only when they have filled their old comb with food and brood above a threshold level. The threshold increases with time until, at the end of the season, building is never an optimal behavior. The temporal pattern of construction predicted by the model – pulses of building coincident with periods of nectar intake and comb fullness – matches that seen in an actual colony observed over the course of an entire foraging season. When nectar sources are rich but temporally clumped, the model also predicts that bees should be sensitive to nectar intake, employing much higher thresholds on days when nectar is not available than on days when it is. Even under poorer and more dispersed nectar regimes, little fitness cost is paid by colonies replacing the optimal strategy with a simpler rule of thumb calling for new construction only when two conditions are met: (1) a fullness threshold has been exceeded, and (2) nectar is currently being collected. Experiments demonstrate that colonies do in fact use such a rule of thumb to control the onset of construction. However, once they have begun building, the bees continue as long as nectar collection persists, regardless of changes in comb fullness. Thus the onset and duration of comb-building bouts appear to be under partially independent control. Received: 30 October 1998 / Received in revised form: 14 December 1998 / Accepted: 16 January 1999     

Genotypic differences in brood rearing in honey bee colonies: context-specific?

Summary Three experiments were performed to determine whether brood care in honey bee colonies is influenced by colony genetic structure and by social context. In experiment 1, there were significant genotypic biases in the relative likelihood of rearing queens or workers, based on observations of individually labeled workers of known age belonging to two visually distinguishable subfamilies. In experiment 2, no genotypic biases in the relative likelihood of rearing drones or workers was detected, in the same colonies that were used in experiment 1. In experiment 3, there again were significant genotypic differences in the likelihood of rearing queens or workers, based on electrophoretic analyses of workers from a set of colonies with allozyme subfamily markers. There also was an overall significant trend for colonies to show greater subfamily differences in queen rearing when the queens were sisters (half- and super-sisters) rather than unrelated, but these differences were not consistent from trial to trial for some colonies. Results of experiments 1 and 3 demonstrate genotypic differences in queen rearing, which has been reported previously based on more limited behavioral observations. Results from all three experiments suggest that genotypic differences in brood care are influenced by social context and may be more pronounced when workers have a theoretical opportunity to practice nepotism. Finally, we failed to detect persistent interindividual differences in bees from either subfamily in the tendency to rear queen brood, using two different statistical tests. This indicates that the probability of queen rearing was influenced by genotypic differences but not by the effect of prior queen-rearing experience. These results suggest that subfamilies within a colony can specialize on a particular task, such as queen rearing, without individual workers performing that task for extended periods of time.     

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     

Sperm usage in honey bees

Sperm usage was investigated in a naturally mated honey bee queen. We collected worker progeny arising from eggs that were laid sequentially during three sampling periods. Paternity was determined by analysis of three polymorphic microsatellite loci, leading to the conclusion that the queen had mated with seven males. Direct analysis of the sperm from the spermatheca revealed no evidence that sperm from additional males was present inside the spermatheca. Frequencies of different subfamilies differed significantly and ranged from 3.8% to 27.3%. In the short term, the frequencies of subfamilies among the eggs laid did not change over time. The frequency of eggs of a particular subfamily was statistically independent of the previous egg's subfamily. Thus, there is no evidence for non-random fine-scale sperm usage, and we estimate the effect of sperm clumping to be less than 6%. We conclude that the sperm is mixed completely inside the queen's spermatheca. Our results suggest that taking brood samples from comb cells next to each other is a statistically correct way of independent sampling of subfamilies at a given time in honey bee colonies. Furthermore, any bias in subfamily frequencies in offspring queens due to sperm usage can be excluded. However, the analyses of progeny samples taken 12 months apart do not allow us to exclude moderate fluctuations of subfamily frequencies in the long-term. Received: 11 August 1997 / Accepted after revision: 14 November 1997     

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     

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     

Effects of intracolony variability in behavioral development on plasticity of division of labor in honey bee colonies

There is a genetic component to plasticity in age polyethism in honey bee colonies, such that workers of some genotypes become precocious foragers more readily than do workers of other genotypes, in colonies lacking older bees. Using colonies composed of workers from two identifiable genotype groups, we determined that intracolony differences in the likelihood of becoming a precocious forager are a consequence of differences in rates of behavioral development that are also evident under conditions leading to normal development. An alternative hypothesis, that differences in the likelihood of becoming a precocious forager are due to differences in general sensitivity to altered colony conditions, was not supported. In three out of three trials, workers from the genotype group that was more likely to exhibit precocious foraging in single cohort colonies also foraged at relatively younger ages in colonies in which workers exhibited normal behavioral development. In contrast, in three out of three trials, workers from the genotype group that was more likely to exhibit precocious foraging in single-cohort colonies did not show disproportionately more overaged nursing in colonies in which workers exhibited delayed development. These results indicate that genotypic differences in plasticity in age-related division of labor are based on genotypic differences in rates of behavioral development.     

Regulation of pollen foraging in honeybee colonies: effects of young brood, stored pollen, and empty space

Pollen storage in a colony of Apis mellifera is actively regulated by increasing and decreasing pollen foraging according to the “colony's needs.” It has been shown that nectar foragers indirectly gather information about the nectar supply of the colony from nestmates without estimating the amount of honey actually stored in the combs. Very little is known about how the actual colony need is perceived with respect to pollen foraging. Two factors influence the need for pollen: the quantity of pollen stored in cells and the amount of brood. To elucidate the mechanisms of perception, we changed the environment within normal-sized colonies by adding pollen or young brood and measured the pollen-foraging activity, while foragers had either direct access to them or not. Our results show that the amount of stored pollen, young brood, and empty space directly provide important stimuli that affect foraging behavior. Different mechanisms for forager perception of the change in the environment are discussed. Received: 13 June 1998 / Accepted after revision: 25 October 1998     

Within-nest temporal polyethism in the honey bee

A well-regulated division of labor has been one of the core adaptations leading to the success of the social insects. Honeybee division of labor has been classically viewed as a sequence of age-related changes in task performance. Kolmes questioned this view arguing that his studies did not support the existence of any age-related within-nest specialization. To resolve this controversy, Kolmes and Seeley conducted a joint study with mixed results. They found support for a cell cleaning caste, but diverged on whether their results supported distinct nursing and middle age castes. In this paper, I follow up on their work to resolve the question of caste number in within-nest honey bees. To determine whether nurses (typically aged 4–12 days) and middle-aged bees (aged 12–20 days) have distinct task repertoires, I conducted focal animal observations on a large number of workers in both age groups working within the same nests at the same time. The results support their being two castes of within-nest bees. Young bees specialized on brood care tasks, while middle-aged bees specialized on nectar processing and nest maintenance. Middle-aged bees were observed caring for brood in less than 1% of the observations. Moreover, both castes exhibited movement patterns that correspond to the traditional view that nurses stay within the broodnest, while middle-aged bees move around a great deal in search of work throughout the nest. A review of studies conducted since the debate of Seeley and Kolmes supports the reliability of these results. This work has relevance for proximate models of temporal polyethism, as it is often assumed by such models that there is only one within-nest caste in the honeybee.     

Swarm cognition in honey bees

We synthesize findings from neuroscience, psychology, and behavioral biology to show that some key features of cognition in the neuron-based brains of vertebrates are also present in the insect-based swarm of honey bees. We present our ideas in the context of the cognitive task of nest-site selection by honey bee swarms. After reviewing the mechanisms of distributed evidence gathering and processing that are the basis of decision making in bee swarms, we point out numerous similarities in the functional organization of vertebrate brains and honey bee swarms. These include the existence of interconnected subunits, parallel processing of information, a spatially distributed memory, layered processing of information, lateral inhibition, and mechanisms of focusing attention on critical stimuli. We also review the performance of simulated swarms in standard psychological tests of decision making: tests of discrimination ability and assessments of distractor effects.     

A quantitative study of worker reproduction in honey bee colonies

Summary In 11 Apis mellifera colonies with laying queens, about 0.12% of the males produced derived from eggs laid by workers. This result requires explanation both of why workers produce any males, and, since they do, why they produce so few. Workers may maximize their inclusive fitness by forgoing reproduction, or their sterility may be due to to enforcement of the interests of the queen or those of other workers. The presence of laying workers might then result from developmental noise in the workers, from a failure of communication of the queen's presence, or a failure of enforcement mechanisms. Selection for worker reproduction in colonies following queen loss may also play a role in shaping worker reproduction in colonies with a queen. The hypothesis of worker sterility enforced by other workers seems most likely to be correct, but further studies on these hypotheses are needed.     

Choosing a home: how the scouts in a honey bee swarm perceive the completion of their group decision making

This study considers the mystery of how the scout bees in a honey bee swarm know when they have completed their group decision making regarding the swarm's new nest site. More specifically, we investigated how the scouts sense when it is appropriate for them to begin producing the worker piping signals that stimulate their swarm-mates to prepare for the flight to their new home. We tested two hypotheses: "consensus sensing," the scouts noting when all the bees performing waggle dances are advertising just one site; and "quorum sensing," the scouts noting when one site is being visited by a sufficiently large number of scouts. Our test involved monitoring four swarms as they discovered, recruited to, and chose between two nest boxes and their scouts started producing piping signals. We found that a consensus among the dancers was neither necessary nor sufficient for the start of worker piping, which indicates that the consensus sensing hypothesis is false. We also found that a buildup of 10–15 or more bees at one of the nest boxes was consistently associated with the start of worker piping, which indicates that the quorum sensing hypothesis may be true. In considering why the scout bees rely on reaching a quorum rather than a consensus as their cue of when to start preparing for liftoff, we suggest that quorum sensing may provide a better balance between accuracy and speed in decision making. In short, the bees appear to begin preparations for liftoff as soon as enough of the scout bees, but not all of them, have approved of one of the potential nest sites.