Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 337–343 | Cite as

Mating flights select for symmetry in honeybee drones (Apis mellifera)

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Abstract

Males of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) fly to specific drone congregation areas (DCAs), which virgin queens visit in order to mate. From the thousands of drones that are reared in a single colony, only very few succeed in copulating with a queen, and therefore, a strong selection is expected to act on adult drones during their mating flights. In consequence, the gathering of drones at DCAs may serve as an indirect mate selection mechanism, assuring that queens only mate with those individuals having a better flight ability and a higher responsiveness to the queen’s visual and chemical cues. Here, we tested this idea relying on wing fluctuating asymmetry (FA) as a measure of phenotypic quality. By recapturing marked drones at a natural DCA and comparing their size and FA with a control sample of drones collected at their maternal hives, we were able to detect any selection on wing size and wing FA occurring during the mating flights. Although we found no solid evidence for selection on wing size, wing FA was found to be significantly lower in the drones collected at the DCA than in those collected at the hives. Our results demonstrate the action of selection during drone mating flights for the first time, showing that developmental stability can influence the mating ability of honeybee drones. We therefore conclude that selection during honeybee drone mating flights may confer some fitness advantages to the queens.

Keywords

Apis mellifera Developmental stability Drone congregation area Fluctuating asymmetry Mating flights 

Supplementary material

114_2009_638_MOESM1_ESM.doc (572 kb)
S1Map showing the location of the study hives and the drone congregation area in Halle, Germany (courtesy of Google Earth V4.3.7). (DOC 571 kb)
114_2009_638_MOESM2_ESM.xls (70 kb)
S2Table showing the haplotype assignments and consensus reconstruction of the sibships of 144 marked Apis mellifera drones recaptured at their maternal hives and at a nearby drone congregation area. (XLS 69 kb)
114_2009_638_MOESM3_ESM.doc (256 kb)
S3Figure showing the 14 morphological characters measured in the forewings of Apis mellifera drones. Distances (D) are shown in red, while angles (A) are shown in yellow. (DOC 256 kb)

References

  1. Abramoff MD, Magelhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image Processing with Image. J Biophotonics International 11:36–42. ImageJ is available from: http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/
  2. Andersson M, Simmons LW (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21:296–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer B (2005) Sexual selection in Apis bees. Apidologie 36:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg S, Koeniger N, Koeniger G, Fuchs S (1997) Body size and reproductive success of drones (Apis mellifera L). Apidologie 28:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop GH (1920) Fertilization in the honey-bee I. The male sexual organs: their histological structure and physiological functioning. J Exp Zool 31:225–265Google Scholar
  6. Boomsma JJ, Ratnieks FLW (1996) Paternity in eusocial hymenoptera. Philos T Roy Soc B 351:947–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boomsma JJ, Baer B, Heinze J (2005) The evolution of male traits in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 50:395–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brückner D (1976) The influence of genetic variability on wing asymmetry in honeybees (Apis mellifera). Evolution 30:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke GM, Oldroyd BP (1996) The genetic basis of developmental stability in Apis mellifera II. Relationships between character size, asymmetry and single-locus heterozygosity. Genetica 97:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke GM, Oldroyd BP, Hunt P (1992) The genetic basis of developmental stability in Apis mellifera: heterozygosity versus genic balance. Evolution 46:753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins AM, Caperna TJ, Williams V, Garrett WM, Evans JD (2006) Proteomic analyses of male contributions to honey bee sperm storage and mating. Insect Mol Biol 15:541–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. De Block M, Stocks R (2007) Flight-related body morphology shapes mating success in a damselfly. Anim Behav 74:1093–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Miranda J, Fries I (2008) Venereal and vertical transmission of deformed wing virus in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). J Invertebr Pathol 98:184–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Duay P, De Jong D, Engels W (2002) Decreased flight performance and sperm production in drones of the honey bee (Apis mellifera) slightly infested by Varroa destructor mites during pupal development. Genet Mol Res 1:227–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gary NE (1992) Activities and behavior of honey bees. In: Graham JM (ed) The hive and the honey bee. Dadant & Sons Inc., Hamilton, pp 269–372Google Scholar
  16. Hepburn HR, Radloff SE, Fuchs S (1999) Flight machinery dimensions of honeybees, Apis mellifera. J Comp Physiol B 169:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herbert EW Jr (1992) Honey bee nutrition. In: Graham JM (ed) The hive and the honey bee. Dadant & Sons Inc, Hamilton, pp 197–233Google Scholar
  18. Koeniger N, Koeniger G (2000) Reproductive isolation among species of the genus Apis. Apidologie 31:313–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koeniger N, Koeniger G (2007) Mating flight duration of Apis mellifera queens: as short as possible, as long as necessary. Apidologie 38:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koeniger N, Koeniger G, Gries M, Tingek S (2005a) Drone competition at drone congregation areas in four Apis species. Apidologie 36:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koeniger N, Koeniger G, Pechhacker H (2005b) The nearer the better? Drones (Apis mellifera) prefer nearer drone congregation areas. Insect Soc 52:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lens L, Van Dongen S, Kark S, Matthysen E (2002) Fluctuating asymmetry as an indicator of fitness: can we bridge the gap between studies? Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 77:27–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Loper GM, Wolf WW, Taylor OR (1988) The use of radar to document honey-bee (Apis mellifera) drone flight behavior. In: Needham GR, Page RE Jr, Delfinado-Baker M, Bowman CE (eds) Africanized bees and bee mites. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp 193–198Google Scholar
  24. Markow TA, Ricker JP (1992) Male size, developmental stability, and mating success in natural populations of three Drosophila species. Heredity 69:122–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Møller AP (1991) Sexual ornament size and the cost of fluctuating asymmetry. P Roy Soc Lond B Biol 243:59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Møller AP, Swaddle JP (1997) Developmental stability and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Moritz RFA (1981) Der Einfluss der Inzucht auf die fitness der Drohnen von Apis mellifera carnica. Apidologie 12:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Page RE Jr, Erickson EH Jr (1988) Reproduction by worker honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Page RE Jr, Metcalf RA (1984) A population investment sex ratio for the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.). Am Nat 124:680–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer RA, Strobeck C (1986) Fluctuating assymetry: measurement, analysis, patterns. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17:391–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polak M (1993) Parasites increase fluctuating asymmetry of male Drosophila nigrospiracula: implications for sexual selection. Genetica 89:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polak M (2003) Developmental instability: causes and consequences. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruttner F (1988) Biogeography and taxonomy of honeybees. Springer Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlüns H, Schlüns EA, van Praagh J, Moritz RFA (2003) Sperm numbers in drone honeybees (Apis mellifera) depend on body size. Apidologie 34:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider SS, Leamy LJ, Lewis LA, DeGrandi-Hoffman G (2003) The influence of hybridization between African and European honeybees, Apis mellifera, on asymmetries in wing size and shape. Evolution 57:2350–2364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoeters E, Billen J (2000) The importance of the spermathecal duct in bumblebees. J Insect Physiol 46:1303–1312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Shaibi T, Lattorff HMG, Moritz RFA (2008) A microsatellite DNA toolkit for studying population structure in Apis mellifera. Mol Ecol Res 8:1034–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shimanuki H, Knox DA, Furgala B, Caron DM, Williams JL (1992) Diseases and pests of honey bees. In: Graham JM (ed) The hive and the honey bee. Dadant & Sons Inc., Hamilton, pp 1083–1151Google Scholar
  39. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith DR, Crespi BJ, Bookstein FL (1997) Fluctuating asymmetry in the honey bee, Apis mellifera: effects of ploidy and hybridization. J Evol Biol 10:551–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Snodgrass RE, Erickson EH (1992) The anatomy of the honey bee. In: Graham JM (ed) The Hive and the Honey Bee. Dadant & Sons Inc., Hamilton, pp 103–169Google Scholar
  42. Thomas ALR (1993) The aerodynamic costs of asymmetry in the wings and tail of birds: asymmetric can’t fly round tight corners. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol 254:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thornhill R, Alcock J (2001) The evolution of insect mating systems. ¡Universe.com Inc, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  44. Walsh PS, Metzgar DA, Higuchi R (1991) Chelex-100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10:506–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams JL (1987) Wind-directed pheromone trap for drone honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Econ Entomol 80:532–536Google Scholar
  46. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  47. Winston ML (1987) The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Woyke J (1983) Dynamics of entry of spermatozoa into the spermatheca of instrumentally inseminated queen honeybees. J Apicult Res 22:150–154Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Molecular Ecology, Institute of BiologyMartin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  2. 2.Centre for Evolutionary Biology, School of Animal Biology (M092)The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  3. 3.ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, Molecular and Chemical Sciences BuildingThe University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations