Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 111–119 | Cite as

The ontogeny of the social structure in a captive Bombus terrestris colony

  • Cor van Honk
  • Pauline Hogeweg


In this paper the results are presented of an analysis of the interaction—structure and dominance hierarchy in a captive Bombus terrestris colony. The results show that:
  1. 1.

    The workers start their lives at a position on the hierarchical ladder far removed from that of the queen and subsequently approach the queen. Once a worker has reached a position on the queen-side of the axis, established in a principal co-ordinate analysis (PCA), she remains on that side until the queen leaves the nest. At all stages of the observation period the number of workers at the queen-side of the axis is about one quarter of the entire population. The workers who approach the queen generally become laying workers.

  2. 2.

    The dissimilarity between the queen and the workers on her side of the axis (the ‘elite group’) is remarkably constant. The elite workers show more interaction with other workers than do the common workers and they have a high dominance index towards workers in transition towards the elite group. Workers tend to interact more frequently than estimated with their own age class than with others. During the period of their admission to the elite the older workers show an increased frequency of interaction with the queen.

  3. 3.

    After the departure of the queen many of the older workers drop to a lower position; a false queen emerges who has a position similar to that of the queen. Force of numbers, rather than senescense of the queen, seems to cause the queen's loss of dominance.



Social Structure Entire Population High Dominance Lower Position Dominance Hierarchy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bock HH (1974) Automatische Klassifikation. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen and ZürichGoogle Scholar
  2. Brian MV (1968) Regulation of sexual production in an ant society. Colloq Int CNRS 173:61–76Google Scholar
  3. Crewe RM, Velthuis HHW (1980) False Queens: a consequence of mandibular gland signals in worker honeybees. Naturwissenschaften 67:467–469Google Scholar
  4. Darwin CR (1882) The origin of species. Dent, London, pp 253–259Google Scholar
  5. Free JB (1955) The behaviour of egg-laying workers of bumblebee colonies. Br J Anim Behav 3:147–153Google Scholar
  6. Free JB (1961) The social organisation of the bumble-bee colony. North Hants, Fleet Hants, p 11Google Scholar
  7. Gower JC (1966) Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 23:623–637Google Scholar
  8. Hogeweg P (1976) Iterative character weighing in numerical taxonomy. Comp Biol Med 6:199–211Google Scholar
  9. Honk CGJ Van (in press) Queen pheromones and agonistic behaviour in Bombus terrestris. A view on the sociobiology of social Apidae based on intraspecific competition. ApidologieGoogle Scholar
  10. Honk CGJ Van, Velthuis HHW, Röseler PF, Malotaux ME (1980) The mandibular glands of Bombus terrestris queens as a source of queen pheromones. Entomol Exp Appl 28:191–198Google Scholar
  11. Honk CGJ Van, Röseler PF, Velthuis HHW, Hoogeveen JC (1981) Factors influencing the egg laying of workers in a captive Bombus terrestris colony. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:9–14Google Scholar
  12. Kendall MG (1972) Cluster analysis. In: Watanabe S (ed) Frontiers of pattern recognition. Academic Press, New York LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  14. Röseler PF (1970) Unterschiede in der Kastendetermination zwischen den Hummelarten Bombus hypnorum und Bombus terrestris. Z Naturforsch 25b: 543–548Google Scholar
  15. Röseler PF (1974) Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Oogenese bei weiselrichtigen und weisellosen Arbeiterinnen der Hummelart Bombus terrestris. Insectes Soc 21:249–274Google Scholar
  16. Röseler PF, Röseler I (1977) Dominance in Bumblebees. VIIIth Int Congr IUSSI, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  17. Röseler PF, Röseler I, Honk CGJ Van (1981) Evidence for inhibition of corpora allata activity in workers of Bombus terrestris by pheromone of the queen's mandibular glands. Experientia 37:348–351Google Scholar
  18. Sakagami SF (1954) Occurrence of an aggressive behaviour in queenless hives, with considerations on the social organization of honeybee. Insectes Soc 1:331–343Google Scholar
  19. Trivers RL, Have H (1976) Haplodiploidy and the evolution of Social insects. Science 191:249–263Google Scholar
  20. Velthuis HHW, Ruttner F, Crewe RM (1981) Differentiation in physiology and behavior during the development of laying worker honeybees. In: Engels W (ed) Social insects, an evolutionary approach to caste and reproduction. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–244Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cor van Honk
    • 1
  • Pauline Hogeweg
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Comparative PhysiologyUtrecht State UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Bioinformatics Group, Transitorium IIIUtrecht State UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations