Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 286–292 | Cite as

The communal crop: modulation of sucrose response thresholds of pre-foraging honey bees with incoming nectar quality

  • Tanya PankiwEmail author
  • Mindy Nelson
  • Robert E. PageJr
  • M. Kim Fondrk
Original Article

Abstract

We examined whether the quality (concentration) of incoming sucrose solutions returned by foraging honey bees affected the response thresholds of pre-foraging members of the colony. Six pairs of colonies were given ad libitum access to sucrose solution feeders. A colony from each pair was switched from 20–50% sugar concentration feeders while the other continued to have access to 20% sucrose feeders. Proboscis extension response (PER) scores to an increasing series of sucrose concentrations were significantly higher in pre-foragers of colonies foraging on 20% sucrose throughout compared to pre-foragers in colonies where foraging was switched to 50% sucrose. Although all colonies had honey stores, the concentration of sugar solution in non-foraging bees’ crops were significantly lower in bees from colonies foraging on 20% sucrose compared to those from colonies foraging on 50% sucrose. Because response thresholds to sugar of young bees were modulated by the concentration of sucrose solution returned to colonies, we repeated the 2000 study of Pankiw and Page that potentially confounded baseline response thresholds with modulated scores due to experience in the colony. Here, we examined PER scores to sucrose in bees within 6 h of emergence, prior to feeding experience, and their forage choice 2 to 3 weeks later. Pollen foragers had higher PER scores as newly emerged bees compared to bees that eventually became nectar foragers. These results confirm those of the 2000 study by Pankiw and Page. Combined, these experiments demonstrate that variation in pre-forager sucrose response thresholds are established prior to emerging as adults but may be modulated by incoming resources later on. Whether this modulation has long-term effects on foraging behavior is unknown but modulation has short-term effects and the potential to act as a means of communication among all bees in the colony.

Keywords

Honey bee Communication Proboscis extension response threshold Foraging behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Meredith Humphries and Mike Niemala for their assistance. This work was funded by NSF IBN 0076811 and NSF IBN 0090482 grants from The National Science Foundation to R.E.P.

References

  1. Al-Tikrity WS, Benton AW, Hillman RC, Clarke WW Jr (1972) The relationship between the amount of unsealed brood in honeybee colonies and their pollen collection. J Apic Res 11:9–12Google Scholar
  2. Barker RJ (1971) The influence of food inside the hive on pollen collection. J Apic Res 10:23–26Google Scholar
  3. Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bitterman ME, Menzel R, Feitz A, Schäfer S (1983) Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Psychol 97:107–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dethier VG (1976) The hungry fly. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  6. Dreller C, Page RE, Fondrk MK (1999) Regulation of pollen foraging in honeybee colonies: effects of young brood, stored pollen, and empty space. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreller C, Tarpy DR (2000) Perception of the pollen need by foragers in a honeybee colony. Anim Behav 59:91–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckert CD, Winston ML, Ydenberg RC (1994) The relationship between population size, amount of brood, and individual foraging behaviour in the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Oecologia 97:248–255Google Scholar
  9. Fewell JH, Bertram SM (2002) Evidence for genetic variation in worker task performance by African and European honey bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fewell JH, Winston ML (1992) Colony state and regulation of pollen foraging in the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:387–393Google Scholar
  11. Free JB (1979) Managing honeybee colonies to enhance the pollen-gathering stimulus from brood pheromones. Appl Anim Ethol 5:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hart AG, Ratnieks FLW (2001) Why do honey-bee (Apis mellifera) foragers transfer nectar to several receivers? Information improvement through multiple sampling in a biological system. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:244–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  14. Jaycox ER (1970) Honey bee queen pheromones and worker foraging behavior. Ann Entomol Soc Am 63:222–228Google Scholar
  15. Kuwabara M (1957) Bildung des bedingten Reflexes vom Pavlov Typus bei der Honigbiene (Apis mellifica). J Fac Sci Hokkaido Univ Zool 13:458–464Google Scholar
  16. LeConte Y, Mohammedi A, Robinson GE (2001) Primer effects of a brood pheromone on honeybee behavioural development. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Page RE, Erber J (2002) Levels of behavioral organization and the evolution of division of labor. Naturwissenschaften 89:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Page RE, Fondrk MK (1995) The effects of colony -level selection on the social organization of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.): colony-level components of pollen hoarding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Page RE, Erber J, Fondrk MK (1998) The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Comp Physiol A 182:489–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pankiw T (2003) Directional change in a suite of foraging behaviors in tropical and temperate evolved honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:458–464Google Scholar
  21. Pankiw T, Page RE (1999) The effects of genotype, age, and caste on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees. J Comp Physio A 185:207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pankiw T, Page RE (2000) Response thresholds to sucrose predict foraging division of labor in honey bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pankiw T, Page RE (2001) Genotype and colony environment affect honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) development and foraging behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pankiw T, Rubink WL (2002) Pollen foraging response to brood pheromone by Africanized and European honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Ann Entomol Soc Am 95:761–767Google Scholar
  25. Pankiw T, Huang Z-Y, Winston ML, Robinson GE (1998a) Queen mandibular gland pheromone influences worker honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) juvenile hormone titres and foraging ontogeny. J Insect Physiol 44:685–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pankiw T, Page RE, Fondrk MK (1998b) Brood pheromone stimulates pollen foraging in honey bees (Apis mellifera). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pankiw T, Waddington. KD, Page RE (2001) Modulation of sucrose response thresholds in honey bees (Apis mellifera): influence of genotype, feeding and foraging experience. J Comp Physiol A 187:293–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Seeley TD (1986) Social foraging by honey bees: how colonies allocate foragers among patches of flowers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:343–354Google Scholar
  29. Seeley TD (1989) Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colony’s nutritional status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:181–199Google Scholar
  30. Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive. The social physiology of honey bee colonies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  31. Seeley TD, Towne WF (1992) Tactics of dance choice in honey bees: do foragers compare dances? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:59–69Google Scholar
  32. Seeley TD, Mikheyev AS, Pagano GJ (2000) Dancing bees tune duration and rate of waggle-run production in relation to nectar-source profitability. J Comp Physiol A 186:813–819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. Freeman, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
  34. Todd FE, Reed CB (1970) Brood measurement as a valid index to the value of honey bees as pollinators. J Econ Entomol 63:148–149Google Scholar
  35. Winston ML (1987) The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanya Pankiw
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Mindy Nelson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Robert E. PageJr
    • 3
  • M. Kim Fondrk
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations