Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 631–637 | Cite as

Contest experience does not increase survivorship in honey bee queen duels

  • K. Jackson
  • G. E. Robinson
Research Article


Animals engage in intraspecific conflict to increase their access to resources as well as improve their rank within the group. Prior experience can contribute to the outcome of conspecific contests and agonistic interactions. Winning a previous encounter can raise an individual’s probability of winning future contests, a phenomenon known as the winner effect. Likewise, a prior loss can reduce the probability of future wins, known as the loser effect. Theoretical and empirical research suggests that a winner effect can only exist in the presence of a loser effect. However, recent evidence suggests that this is not always the case. This finding prompted the present study, which explores whether there is a winner effect in virgin honey bee queens (Apis mellifera).Virgin queens compete with each other in fatal contests; losers do not survive, so there is no possibility of a loser effect, but sometimes virgin queens compete with more than one rival, so a winner effect is a possibility. To test for winner effects, we staged duels between pairs of age-matched virgin queens in the laboratory. The winner of each contest was then paired with another age-matched queen with no prior dueling experience. Winning a duel had a significant impact on the outcome of the second duel, but it reduced, rather than increased the probability of winning the second duel.


Aggression Apis mellifera Experience effects Queens Social interactions 



We thank Zhenqing Chen, Hagai Shpigler, Ian Traniello, Frida Corona, Lindsey Block, Alison Sankey, Allyson Ray, and Terry Harrison for their technical assistance with this project. We also thank Claudia Lutz, Dr. Duane Jackson, and two anonymous reviewers for comments that helped improve the manuscript. Funding for this research was provided by a National Science Foundation IGERT Fellowship to Kari Jackson (Grant No. 1069157) (Andy Suarez, PI).


  1. Adamo SA, Hoy RR (1995) Agonistic behaviour in male and female field crickets, Gryllus bimaculatus, and how behavioural context influences its expression. Anim Behav 49:1491–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RD (1961) Aggressive territoriality and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour 17:130–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson TL, Whiteman HH (2015) Asymmetric effects of intra- and interspecific competition on a pond-breeding salamander. Ecology 96:1681–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austad SN (1983) A game theoretical interpretation of male combat in the bowl and doily spider (Frontinella pyramitela). Anim Behav 31:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker TC, Bruijn EF, Sevenster P (1989) Asymmetrical effects of prior winning and losing on dominance in sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ethology 82:224–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bang A, Gadagkar R (2016) Winner–loser effects in a eusocial wasp. Insectes Soc 63:349–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bégin J, Beaugrand JP, Zayan R (1996) Selecting dominants and subordinates at conflict outcome can confound the effects of prior dominance or subordination experience. Behav Proc 36:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Begon M, Townsend C, Harper J (2005) Intraspecific competition. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 132–185Google Scholar
  9. Benelli G, Desneux N, Romano D, Conte G, Messing RH, Canale A (2015) Contest experience enhances aggressive behaviour in a fly: when losers learn to win. Sci Rep 5:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benelli G, Romano D, Desneux N, Messing R (2015) Sex differences in fighting-induced hyperaggression in a fly. Anim Behav 104:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bubak A, Gerken A, Watt M, Costabile J, Renner K, Swallow J (2016) Assessment strategies and fighting patterns in animal contests: a role for serotonin? Curr Zool 62:257–263CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Châline N, Martin SJ, Ratnieks FLW (2004) Absence of nepotism toward imprisoned young queens during swarming in the honey bee. Behav Ecol 16:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman MR, Kramer DL (1996) Guarded resources: the effect of intruder number on the tactics and success of defenders and intruders. Anim Behav 52:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crespi BJ (1986) Size assessment and alternative fighting tactics in Elaphrothrips tuberculatus (Insecta: Thysanoptera). Anim Behav 34:1324–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickinson JL (1992) Scramble competition polygyny in the milkweed leaf beetle: combat, mobility, and the importance of being there. Behav Ecol 3:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietemann V, Zheng H, Hepburn C, Hepburn HR, Jin S, Crewe RM, Radloff SE, Hu F, Pirk CW (2008) Self assessment in insects: honeybee queens know their own strength. PLoS One 3:e1412CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Eckert CG, Weatherhead PJ (1987) Owners, floaters and competitive asymmetries among territorial red-winged blackbirds. Anim Behav 35:1317–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enquist M, Leimar O (1990) The evolution of fatal fighting. Anim Behav 39:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia MJ, Murphree J, Wilson J, Earley RL (2014) Mechanisms of decision making during contests in green anole lizards: prior experience and assessment. Anim Behav 92:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilley DC (2001) The behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica) during queen duels. Ethology 107:601–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilley DC (2003) Absence of nepotism in the harassment of duelling queens by honeybee workers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:2045–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilley DC, Tarpy DR (2005) Three mechanisms of queen elimination in swarming honey bee colonies. Apidologie 36:461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goubault M, Decuignière M (2012) Previous experience and contest outcome: winner effects persist in absence of evident loser effects in a parasitoid wasp. Am Nat 180:364–371CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoefler CD (2002) Is contest experience a trump card? The interaction of residency status, experience, and body size on fighting success in Misumenoides formosipes (Aranea: Thomisidae). J Insect Behav 15:779–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hsu Y, Earley RL, Wolf LL (2006) Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biol Rev 81:33–74CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Hsu Y, Wolf LL (1999) The winner and loser effect: integrating multiple experiences. Anim Behav 67:903–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hsu Y, Wolf LL (2001) The winner and loser effect: what fighting behaviours are influenced? Anim Behav 61:777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Innocent TM, Savage J, West S, Reece S (2007) Lethal combat and sex ratio evolution in a parasitoid wasp. Behav Ecol 18:709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Innocent TM, West SA, Sanderson JL, Hyrkkanen N, Reece SE (2011) Lethal combat over limited resources: testing the importance of competitors and kin. Behav Ecol 22:923–931CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolmes SA, Fergusson-Kolmes LA (1989) Measurements of stinging behaviour in individual worker honeybees (Apis Mellifera L.). J Apic Res 28:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leboeuf AC, Waridel P, Brent CS, Gonçalves AN, Menin L, Ortiz D, Riba-Grognuz O, Koto A, Soares ZG, Privman E, Misaka EA, Benton R, Keller L (2016) Oral transfer of chemical cues, growth proteins and hormones in social insects. ELife 5:e20375CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Levine M, Ensom MH (2001) Post hoc power analysis: an idea whose time has passed? Pharmacotherapy 21:405–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Long K, Cao TT, Keller JJ, Tarpy DR, Shin M, Schneider SS (2017) Levels of selection shaping caste interactions during queen replacement in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Insectes Soc 64:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mesterton-Gibbons M (1999) On the evolution of pure winner and loser effects: A game-theoretic model. Bull Math Biol 61:1151–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mesterton-Gibbons M, Dai Y, Goubault M (2016) Modeling the evolution of winner and loser effects: A survey and prospectus. Mathematical Biosciences 274:33–44CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore P, Wilson M, Skinner J (2015) Honey bee queens: evaluating the most important colony member.
  38. Otronen M (1990) The effect of prior experience on the outcome of fights in the burying beetle, Nicrophorus humator. Anim Behav 40:980–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oyegbile TO, Marler CA (2005) Winning fights elevates testosterone levels in California mice and enhances future ability to win fights. Horm Behav 48:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paleolog J, Kasperek K, Lipiński Z (2011) The psychological dimension of duels between western honeybee queens with blunted and non blunted sting. J Apic Sci 53:97–104Google Scholar
  41. Parker G (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol 47:223–243CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Pflugfelder J, Koeniger N (2003) Fight between virgin queens (Apis mellifera) is initiated by contact to the dorsal abdominal surface. Apidologie 34:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reece S, Innocent TM, West S (2007) Lethal Male–male combat in the parasitoid Melittobia Acasta: are size and competitive environment important? Anim Behav 74:1163–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneider SS, Degrandi-Hoffman G (2008) Queen replacement in African and European honey bee colonies with and without afterswarms. Insectes Soc 55:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simmons LW (1986) Inter-male competition and mating success in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim Behav 34:567–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stahlman D (2013) A queen manual. London, OHGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith TB (1990) Resource use by bill morphs of an African finch: evidence for intraspecific competition. Ecology 71:1246–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tarpy DR, Fletcher DJ (1998) Effects of relatedness on queen competition within honey bee colonies. Anim Behav 55:537–543CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Tarpy DR, Fletcher DJ (2003) “Spraying” behavior during queen competition in honey bees. J Insect Behav 16:425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tarpy DR, Gilley DC, Seeley TD (2004) Levels of selection in a social insect: a review of conflict and cooperation during honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen replacement. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tarpy DR, Hatch S, Fletcher DJ (2000) The influence of queen age and quality during queen replacement in honeybee colonies. Anim Behav 59:97–101CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Tarpy DR, Keller JJ, Caren JR, Delaney DA (2011) Experimentally induced variation in the physical reproductive potential and mating success in honey bee queens. Insectes Soc 58:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tarpy D, Mayer M (2009) The effects of size and reproductive quality on the outcomes of duels between honey bee queens (Apis mellifera L.). Ethol Ecol Evol 21:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Teseo S, Veerus L, Mery F (2016) Fighting experience affects fruit fly behavior in a mating context. Sci Nature 103:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilgenburg EV, Clemencet J, Tsutsui ND (2010) Experience influences aggressive behaviour in the Argentine ant. Biol Lett 6:152–155CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Winston ML (1987) The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of Illinois at Champaign-UrbanaUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic BiologyUniversity of Illinois at Champaign-UrbanaUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.Neuroscience ProgramUniversity of Illinois at Champaign-UrbanaUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations