Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 12, pp 1829–1836 | Cite as

Weak specialization of workers inside a bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) nest

Original Paper

Abstract

Division of labor is common across social groups. In social insects, many studies focus on the differentiation of in-nest and foraging workers and/or the division of foraging tasks. Few studies have specifically examined how workers divide in-nest tasks. In the bumble bee, Bombus impatiens, we have shown previously that smaller workers are more likely to feed larvae and incubate brood, whereas larger workers are more likely to fan or guard the nest. Here, we show that in spite of this, B. impatiens workers generally perform multiple tasks throughout their life. The size of this task repertoire size does not depend on body size, nor does it change with age. Further, individuals were more likely to perform the task they had been performing on the previous day than any other task, a pattern most pronounced among individuals who guarded the nest. On the other hand, there was no predictable sequence of task switching. Because workers tend to remain in the same region of the nest over time, in-nest workers may concentrate on a particular task, or subset of tasks, inside that region. This division of space, then, may be an important mechanism that leads to this weak specialization among in-nest bumble bee workers.

Keywords

Bombus impatiens Bumble bee Division of labor Division of labor index Task repertoire size Task specialization 

References

  1. Alford DV (1978) The life of the bumblebee. Davis-Poynter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brian AD (1952) Division of labour and foraging in Bombus agrorum Fabricius. J Anim Ecol 21:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron SA (1989) Temporal patterns of division of labor among workers in the primitively eusocial bumble bee, Bombus griseocollis (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ethology 80:137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron SA, Robinson GE (1990) Juvenile hormone does not affect division of labor in bumble bee colonies (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 83:626–631Google Scholar
  7. Dornhaus A (2008) Specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant. PLOS 6:2368–2375Google Scholar
  8. Dornhaus A, Holley J-A, Franks NR (2009) Larger colonies do not have more specialized workers in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Fewell JH, Page RE Jr (1999) The emergence of division of labour in forced associations of normally solitary ant queens. Evol Ecol Res 1:537–548Google Scholar
  10. Free JB (1955) The division of labour within bumblebee colonies. Insect Soc 11:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorelick R, Bertram SM, Killeen P, Fewell JH (2004) Normalized mutual entropy in biology: quantifying division of labor. Am Nat 164:677–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorelick R, Bertram SM (2007) Quantifying division of labor: borrowing tools from sociology, sociobiology, information theory, landscape ecology, and biogeography. Insect Soc 54:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC, Hughes WO (2002) Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, be explained in terms of foraging efficiency? Anim Behav 64:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heinrich B (1975) Thermoregulation in bumblebees II. Energetic of warm-up and free flight. J Comp Physiol 96:155–166Google Scholar
  15. Heinrich B (2004) Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1998) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Jandt JM, Dornhaus A (2009) Spatial organization and division of labor in the bumble bee, Bombus impatiens. Anim Behav 77:641–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeanson R, Kukuk PF, Fewell JH (2005) Emergence of division of labour in halictine bees: contributions of social interactions and behavioural variance. Anim Behav 70:1183–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson BR (2008) Within-nest temporal polyethism in the honey bee. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Julian GE, Cahan S (1999) Undertaking specialization in the desert leaf-cutter ant Acromyrmex versicolor. Anim Behav 58:437–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehner PN (1996) Handbook of ethological methods, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Noirot C, Pasteels JM (1987) Ontogenetic development and evolution of the worker caste in termites. Experientia 43:851–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Donnell S, Jeanne RL (1990) Forager specialization and the control of nest repair in Polybia occidentalis Olivier (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Donnell S, Reichardt M, Foster R (2000) Individual and colony factors in bumble bee division of labor (Bombus bifarius nearcticus Handl; Hymenoptera, Apidae). Insect Soc 47:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raine NE, Chittka L (2007) Pollen foraging: learning a complex motor skill by bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Naturwissenschaften 94:459–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robinson GE (1987) Regulation of honey bee age polyethism by juvenile hormone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seeley TD (1982) Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:287–293. doi:10.1007/BF00299306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seid MA, Traniello JFA (2006) Age-related repertoire expansion and division of labor in Pheidole dentate (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a new perspective on temporal polyethism and behavioral plasticity in ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slater PJB (1973) Describing sequences of behavior. In: Bateson PPP, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology, vol 1. Plenum, New York, pp 131–153Google Scholar
  30. Spaethe J, Brockmann A, Halbig C, Tautz J (2007) Size determines antennal sensitivity and behavioral threshold to odors in bumblebee workers. Naturwissenschaften 94:733–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spaethe J, Chittka L (2003) Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. J Exp Biol 206:3447–3453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spaethe J, Weidenmüller A (2002) Size variation and foraging rate in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Insect Soc 49:142–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stern DL, Foster WA (1997) The evolution of sociality in aphids: a clone’s-eye view. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of social behavior in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 150–165Google Scholar
  34. Withers GS, Fahrbach SE, Robinson GE (1993) Selective neuroanatomical plasticity and division of labour in the honeybee. Nature 364:238–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Worden BD, Skemp AK, Papaj DR (2005) Learning in two contexts: the effects of interference and body size in bumblebees. J Exp Biol 208:2045–2053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yerushalmi S, Bodenhaimer S, Bloch G (2006) Developmentally determined attenuation in circadian rhythms links chronobiology to social organization in bees. J Exp Biol 209:1044–1051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology & Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations