Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 62, Issue 7, pp 1099–1105 | Cite as

Odour transfer in stingless bee marmelada (Frieseomelitta varia) demonstrates that entrance guards use an “undesirable–absent” recognition system

Original Paper

Abstract

In group-level recognition, discriminators use sensory information to distinguish group members and non-members. For example, entrance guards in eusocial insect colonies discriminate nestmates from intruders by comparing their odour with a template of the colony odour. Despite being a species-rich group of eusocial bees closely related to the honey bees, stingless bee nestmate recognition is a relatively little-studied area. We studied Frieseomelitta varia, a common Brazilian species of stingless bee known as marmelada. By measuring the rejection rates of nestmate and non-nestmate worker bees by guards, we were able to show that guards became significantly less accepting (from 91 to 46%) of nestmates that had acquired odour cues from non-nestmate workers; however, guards did not become significantly more accepting (from 31 to 42%) of non-nestmates that had acquired equivalent amounts of odour cues from the guard’s nestmates. These data strongly suggest that guards use an “undesirable–absent” system in recognition, whereby incoming conspecific workers are only accepted if undesirable cues are absent, despite the presence of desirable cues. We suggest that an undesirable–absent system is adaptive because robbing by conspecifics may be an important selective factor in F. varia, which would lead to selection for a non-permissive acceptance strategy by guards.

Keywords

Group-level recognition Frieseomelitta varia Acceptance strategy Stingless bees 

References

  1. Biesmeijer JC, Slaa EJ (2004) Information flow and organization of stingless bee foraging.. Apidologie 35:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breed MD, Page RE (1991) Intraspecific and interspecific nestmate recognition in Melipona workers (Hymenoptera, Apidae).. J Insect Behav 4:463–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breed MD, Rogers KB (1991) The behavioral-genetics of colony defense in honeybees—genetic-variability for guarding behavior.. Behav Genet 21:295–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breed MD (1998) Recognition pheromones of the honey bee.. Bioscience 48:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breed MD, Leger EA, Pearce AN, Wang YJ (1998) Comb wax effects on the ontogeny of honey bee nestmate recognition. Anim Behav 55:13–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breed MD, Perry S, Bjostad LB (2004) Testing the blank slate hypothesis: why honey bee colonies accept young bees.. Insectes Sociaux 51:12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchwald R, Breed MD (2005) Nestmate recognition cues in a stingless bee, Trigona fulviventris.. Anim Behav 70:1331–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler CB, Free JB (1952) The behaviour of worker honeybees at the hive entrance.. Behaviour 4:262–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dani F, Jones G, Corsi S, Beard R, Pradella D, Turillazzi S (2005) Nestmate recognition cues in the honey bee: differential importance of cuticular alkanes and alkenes.. Chem Senses 30:477–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downs SG, Ratnieks FLW (2000) Adaptive shifts in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) guarding behavior support predictions of the acceptance threshold model.. Behav Ecol 11:326–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Free JB (1977) The social organization of the honey bees. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Gamboa G, Grudzien T, Espelie K, Bura E (1996) Kin recognition pheromones in social wasps: combining chemical and behavioural evidence.. Anim Behav 51:625–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Getz WM (1991) The honey bee as a model kin recognition system. In: Hepper PG (ed) Kin recognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 358–412Google Scholar
  14. Hölldobler B, Michener CD (1980) Mechanisms of identification and discrimination in social Hymenoptera.. In: Markl H (ed) Evolution of social behavior: hypotheses and empirical tests. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, pp 35–58Google Scholar
  15. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard RW (1993) Cuticular hydrocarbons and chemical communication.. In: Stanley-Samuelson DW, Nelson DR (eds) Insect lipids: chemistry, biochemistry and biology. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 179–226Google Scholar
  17. Inoue T, Roubik DW, Suka T (1999) Nestmate recognition in the stingless bee Melipona panamica (Apidae, Meliponini).. Insectes Sociaux 46:208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jungnickel H, da Costa AJS, Tentschert J, Patricio E, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL, Drijfhout F, Morgan ED (2004) Chemical basis for inter-colonial aggression in the stingless bee Scaptotrigona bipunctata (Hymenoptera: Apidae).. J Insect Physiol 50:761–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirchner WH, Friebe R (1999) Nestmate discrimination in the African stingless bee Hypotrigona gribodoi Magretti (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 30:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorenzi M, Bagneres A, Clement J (1996) The role of cutiuclar hydrocarbons in social insects: is it the same in paper-wasps? In: Turillazzi S, West-Eberhard MJ (eds) Natural history and evolution of paper wasps. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 178–189Google Scholar
  21. Lubbock SJ (1882) Ants, bees and wasps: a record of observations on the habits of the social Hymenoptera. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Michener CD (2000) The bees of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  23. Nogueira-Neto P (1997) Vida e criação de abelhas indigenas sem ferrão, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  24. Reeve HK (1989) The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds.. Am Nat 133:407–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seeley TD (1985) Honeybee ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1997) Recognition systems.. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 69–96Google Scholar
  27. Suka T, Inoue T (1993) Nestmate recognition of the stingless bee Trigona-(Tetragonula)-Minangkabau (Apidae, Meliponinae).. J Ethol 11:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wood M, Ratnieks F (2004) Olfactory cues and Vespula wasp recognition by honey bee guards.. Apidologie 35:461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret J. Couvillon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francis L.W. Ratnieks
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Apiculture & Social Insects, Department of Animal & Plant SciencesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations