Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 103–111 | Cite as

On the integration of individual foraging strategies with colony ergonomics in social insects: nectar-collection in honeybees

  • Thomas J. Wolf
  • Paul Schmid-Hempel


We experimentally tested whether foraging strategies of nectar-collecting workers of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) vary with colony state. In particular, we tested the prediction that bees from small, fast growing colonies should adopt higher workloads than those from large, mature colonies. Queenright “small” colonies were set up by assembling 10 000 worker bees with approximately 4100 brood cells. Queenright “large” colonies contained 35 000 bees and some 14 500 brood cells. Thus, treatments differed in colony size but not in worker/brood ratios. Differences in workload were tested in the context of single foraging cycles. Individuals could forage on a patch of artificial flowers offering given quantities and qualities of nectar rewards. Workers of small colonies took significantly less nectar in an average foraging excursion (small: 40.1 ± 1.1 SE flowers; large: 44.8 ± 1.1), but spent significantly more time handling a flower (small: 7.3 ± 0.4 s ; large: 5.8 ± 0.4 s). When the energy budgets for an average foraging trip were calculated, individuals from all colonies showed a behavior close to maximization of net energetic efficiency (i.e., the ratio of net energetic gains to energetic costs). However, bees from small colonies, while incurring only marginally smaller costs, gained less net energy per foraging trip than those from large colonies, primarily as a result of prolonged handling times. The differences between treatments were largest during the initial phases of the experimental period when also colony development was maximally different. Our results are at variance with simple models that assume natural selection to have shaped behavior in a single foraging trip only so as to maximize colony growth.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen MD, Jeffree EP (1956) The influence of stored pollen and of colony size on the brood rearing of honeybees. Ann Appl Biol 44:649–656Google Scholar
  2. Bourke AFG (1988) Worker reproduction in the higher eusocial hymenoptera. Q Rev Biol 63:291–311Google Scholar
  3. Brian MV (1953) Brood rearing in relation to worker number in the ant Myrmica. Physiol Zool 26:355–366Google Scholar
  4. Brian MV (1966) Inefficiency in brood-rearing in the ant Myrmica rubra L. Insectes Soc 3:71–74Google Scholar
  5. Brian MV (1983) Social insects. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole BJ (1984) Colony efficiency and the reproductivity effect in Leptothorax allardycei (Mann). Insectes Soc 31:403–407Google Scholar
  7. Eischen FA, Rothenbuhler WC, Kulinevic JM (1982) Length of life and dry weight of worker honeybees reared in colonies with different worker-larvae ratios. J Apic Res 21:19–25Google Scholar
  8. Fritz RS, Morse DH (1985) Reproduction success and foraging of the crab spider Misumena vatia. Oecologia 65:194–200Google Scholar
  9. Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1986) The influence of mortality on the behaviour that maximizes reproductive success in a patchy environment.Google Scholar
  11. Houston AI, Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A (1988) Colony growth, worker mortality and foraging strategy in social insects. Am Nat 131:107–114Google Scholar
  12. Jeffree EP, Allen MD (1956) The influence of colony size and Nosema disease on the rate of population loss in honeybee colonies in winter. J Econ Entomol 49:831–843Google Scholar
  13. Kolmes S, Winston ML (1988) Division of labor among worker honey bees in demographically manipulated colonies. Insectes Soc 35:262–270Google Scholar
  14. Lee PC, Winston ML (1985a) The influence of swarm size on brood production and emergent worker weight in newly founded honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera L.). Insectes Soc 32:96–103Google Scholar
  15. Lee PC, Winston ML (1985b) The effect of swarm size and date of issue on comb construction in newly founded colonies of honeybees (Apis mellifera). Can J Zool 63:524–527Google Scholar
  16. Litte M (1979) Mischocyttarus flavipes in Arizona: social and nesting biology of a polistine wasp. Z Tierpsychol 50:282–312Google Scholar
  17. McLellan AR, Rowland RW, Fawell RH (1980) A monogynous eusocial insect worker population model with particular reference to honeybees. Insectes Soc 27:305–311Google Scholar
  18. Michener CD (1964) Reproductive efficiency in relation to colony size in hymenopterous societies. Insectes Soc 11:317–341Google Scholar
  19. Morse DH (1986) Predatory risk to insects foraging at flowers. Oikos 46:223–228Google Scholar
  20. Neukirch A (1982) Dependence of life span of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) upon flight performance and energy consumption. J Comp Physiol 146:35–40Google Scholar
  21. Nonacs P, Dill LM (1988) Foraging response of the ant Lasius pallitarsis to food sources with associated mortality risks. Insectes Soc 35:293–303Google Scholar
  22. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Pomeroy N (1979) Brood bionomics of Bombus ruderatus in New Zealand (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can Entomol 111:865–874Google Scholar
  24. Richards OW, Richards WJ (1951) Observations on the social wasps of South America (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Trans R Entomol Soc London 102:1–170Google Scholar
  25. Rothe U, Nachtigall W (1989) Flight of the honeybee. IV. Respiratory quotients and metabolic rates during sitting, walking and flying. J Comp Physiol (B) 158:739–749Google Scholar
  26. Schmid-Hempel P (1987) Efficient nectar-collection by honeybees. I. Economic models. J Anim Ecol 56:209–218Google Scholar
  27. Schmid-Hempel P (1990) Reproductive competition and the evolution of work load in social insects. Am Nat 135:501–525Google Scholar
  28. Schmid-Hempel P, Schmid-Hempel R (1988) Parasitic flies (Conopidae, Diptera) may be important stress factors for the ergonomics of their bumblebee hosts. Ecol Entomol 13:469–472Google Scholar
  29. Schmid-Hempel P, Wolf T (1988) Foraging effort and life span of workers in a social insect. J Anim Ecol 57:509–521Google Scholar
  30. Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A, Houston AI (1985) Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crop. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:61–66Google Scholar
  31. Seeley TD (1982) Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:287–293Google Scholar
  32. Seeley TD (1985) Honeybee ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Seeley TD (1986) Social foraging by honeybees: how colonies allocate foragers among patches of flowers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:343–354Google Scholar
  34. Seeley TD (1989) Social foraging in honeybees: how nectar foragers assess their colony's nutritional status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:181–189Google Scholar
  35. Seeley TD, Visscher PK (1985) Survival of honeybees in cold climates: the critical timing of colony growth and reproduction. Ecol Entomol 10:81–88Google Scholar
  36. Severin HC (1937) Zodion fulvifrons Say (Diptera: Conopidae), a parasite of the honeybee. Entomol News 48:243–244Google Scholar
  37. Stearns SC, Schmid-Hempel P (1987) Evolutionary insights should not be wasted. Oikos 49:118–125Google Scholar
  38. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson EO (1984) The relation between caste ratios and division of labor in the ant genus Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:89–98Google Scholar
  40. Winston ML (1987) The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Winston ML, Fergusson LA (1985) The effect of worker loss on temporal caste structure in colonies of the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Can J Zool 63:777–780Google Scholar
  42. Winston ML, Punnett EN (1982) Factors determining temporal division of labor in honeybees. Can J Zool 60:2947–2952Google Scholar
  43. Wolf TJ, Schmid-Hempel P (1989) Extra loads and foraging life span in honeybee workers. J Anim Ecol 58:943–954Google Scholar
  44. Wolf TJ, Schmid-Hempel P, Ellington CP, Stevenson RD (1989) Physiological correlates of foraging efforts in honeybees: oxygen consumption and nectar load. Funct Ecol 3:417–424Google Scholar
  45. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Wolf
    • 1
  • Paul Schmid-Hempel
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoologisches Institut der UniversitätBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations