Queenless colonies contribute to the male breeding population at honey bee drone congregation areas
Honey bee workers can lay eggs that result in viable males (drones). In queenless colonies, workers activate their ovaries and lay eggs, both in their own colony and in other queenless colonies. While worker reproduction and reproductive parasitism are well demonstrated, the direct contribution of reproductive workers to the gene pool is unclear. Queenless workers mostly lay their eggs in worker-sized brood cells. The resulting drones are smaller than normal drones. We determined two measures of forewing size in drones reared in drone-sized cells (DC) and in worker-sized cells (WC). Forewing length and width were 5.78 ± 0.26 mm (± SD) and 1.27 ± 0.08 mm, respectively, for drones reared in DC, and 5.01 ± 0.21 mm and 1.11 ± 0.05 mm for drones reared in WC. Discriminant function analysis indicated that forewing length alone is sufficient to differentiate DC and WC drones. To determine the contribution of worker-laid drones to the mating population, we sampled males at a natural mating lek using a Williams’ drone trap every month for 12 months. We used the discriminant function to assign drones as being DC or WC based on their forewing length and a strict classification criterion of ≥ 0.99% posterior probability of assignment to one or other group. We estimate that about 0.23% of sampled males were reared in WC and were, therefore, likely to have been laid by workers. Our results suggest that queenless workers and queenless colonies make a small contribution to the male mating population, and that this contribution may be sufficient to provide ongoing selection for worker reproductive parasitism.
KeywordsWorker reproduction Reproductive success Worker reproductive parasitism Effective population size Population sampling Drone congregation area
We thank Gabriele Buchmann and Lea Abdulkhalek for assistance with drone trapping.
This project was supported by AgriFutures Australia, though funding from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture as part of its Rural R&D for Profit program, as well as Horticulture Innovation Australia. This part of the project is being led by the University of Sydney with further support from Almond Board of Australia, Lucerne Australia, Costa and Raspberries and Blackberries Australia.
- Berg S (1990) Größere Drohen (Apis mellifera) haben mehr Nachommen. In: Proceedings of the German zoological society 83rd meeting 1990. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Frankfurt MainGoogle Scholar
- Berg S (1991) Investigation on the rates of large and small drones at a drone congregation area. Apidologie 22:437–438Google Scholar
- Crozier RH, Pamilo P (1996) Evolution of social insects colonies: Sex allocation and kin selection. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Jaffé R, Dietemann V, Allsopp MH, Costa C, Crewe RM, Dall’olio R, de la Rua P, El-Niweiri MAA, Fries I, Kezic N, Meusel MS, Paxton RJ, Shaibi T, Stolle E, Moritz RFA (2010) Estimating the density of honeybee colonies across their natural range to fill the gap in pollinator decline censuses. Conserv Biol 24:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kuszewska K, Wącławska A, Woyciechowski M (2018b) Reproduction of rebel workers in honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Apidologie 49:162–171Google Scholar
- Loper GM, Wolf WW, Taylor OR (1992) Honey bee drone flyways and congregation areas: radar observations. J Kans Entomol Soc. 65:223–230Google Scholar
- Oldroyd BP, Wongsiri S (2006) Asian honey bees: biology, conservation, and human interactions. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Tribe G (1982) Drone mating assemblies. S Afr Bee J. 54:99–100Google Scholar
- Utaipanon P, Holmes MJ, Chapman NC, Oldroyd BP (2019a) Estimating the density of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies using trapped drones: area sampled and drone mating flight distance. Apidologie. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-019-00671-2
- Winston ML (1991) The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar