Social insect colonies, like individual organisms, must decide as they develop how to allocate optimally their resources among survival, growth, and reproduction. Only when colonies reach a certain state do they switch from investing purely in survival and growth to investing also in reproduction. But how do worker bees within a colony detect that their colony has reached the state where it is adaptive to begin investing in reproduction? Previous work has shown that larger honeybee colonies invest more in reproduction (i.e., the production of drones and queens), however, the term ‘larger’ encompasses multiple colony parameters including number of adult workers, size of the nest, amount of brood, and size of the honey stores. These colony parameters were independently increased in this study to test which one(s) would increase a colony’s investment in reproduction via males. This was assayed by measuring the construction of drone comb, the special type of comb in which drones are reared. Only an increase in the number of workers stimulated construction of drone comb. Colonies with over 4,000 workers began building drone comb, independent of the other colony parameters. These results show that attaining a critical number of workers is the key parameter for honeybee colonies to start to shift resources towards reproduction. These findings are relevant to other social systems in which a group’s members must adjust their behavior as a function of the group’s size.
Sociogenesis Reproductive investment Reproductive timing Worker number Honeybees Drone comb
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank Kevin Loope, Julie Miller, and Carmen Kelleher, for their critical readings of the manuscript, and Jason Barry (CSCU), for his statistical advice. This paper is based on work supported by a US National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (to MLS) and by a Hatch Grant (2010-11-237) from the Cornell University Agriculture Experiment Station (to TDS).
Henderson CE (1991) Reproductive investment in drones in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Dissertation, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
Imdorf A, Buehlmann G, Gerig L et al (1987) Überprüfung der Schätzmethode zur Ermittlung der Brutfläche und der Anzahl Arbeiterinnen in freifliegenden Bienenvölkern. Apidologie 18:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeanne RL, Bouwma AM (2002) Scaling in nests of a social wasp: a property of the social group. Biol Bull 202:289–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy N, Plowright R (1982) The relation between worker numbers and the production of males and queens in the bumble bee Bombus perplexus. Can J Zool 60:954–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt SC (1999) Optimal timing of comb construction by honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies: a dynamic programming model and experimental tests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:30–42. doi:10.1007/s002650050589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starr CK (2006) Steps toward a general theory of the colony cycle in social insects. In: Kipyatkov VE (ed) Life cycles in social insects: behaviour, ecology and evolution. St. Petersburg University Press, St. Petersburg, pp 1–20Google Scholar
Taber S, Owens CD (1970) Colony founding and initial nest design of honey bees, Apis mellifera L. Anim Behav 18:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschinkel WR (1993) Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta during one annual cycle. Ecol Soc Am 63:425–457Google Scholar
Tschinkel WR (1998) Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius: worker characteristics in relation to colony size and season. Insect Soc 45:385–410. doi:10.1007/s000400050097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschinkel WR (2011) Back to basics: sociometry and sociogenesis of ant societies (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 14:49–54Google Scholar