Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 277–290 | Cite as

Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources

  • Thomas D. Seeley
  • Scott Camazine
  • James Sneyd


A honey bee colony can skillfully choose among nectar sources. It will selectively exploit the most profitable source in an array and will rapidly shift its foraging efforts following changes in the array. How does this colony-level ability emerge from the behavior of individual bees? The answer lies in understanding how bees modulate their colony's rates of recruitment and abandonment for nectar sources in accordance with the profitability of each source. A forager modulates its behavior in relation to nectar source profitability: as profitability increases, the tempo of foraging increases, the intensity of dancing increases, and the probability of abandoning the source decreases. How does a forager assess the profitability of its nectar source? Bees accomplish this without making comparisons among nectar sources. Neither do the foragers compare different nectar sources to determine the relative profitability of any one source, nor do the food storers compare different nectar loads and indicate the relative profitability of each load to the foragers. Instead, each forager knows only about its particular nectar source and independently calculates the absolute profitability of its source. Even though each of a colony's foragers operates with extremely limited information about the colony's food sources, together they will generate a coherent colonylevel response to different food sources in which better ones are heavily exploited and poorer ones are abandoned. This is shown by a computer simulation of nectar-source selection by a colony in which foragers behave as described above. Nectar-source selection by honey bee colonies is a process of natural selection among alternative nectar sources as foragers from more profitable sources “survive” (continue visiting their source) longer and “reproduce” (recruit other foragers) better than do foragers from less profitable sources. Hence this colonial decision-making is based on decentralized control. We suggest that honey bee colonies possess decentralized decision-making because it combines effectiveness with simplicity of communication and computation within a colony.


Computer Simulation Natural Selection Food Source Tempo Relative Profitability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baird DH, Seeley TD (1983) An equilibrium theory of queen production in honeybee colonies preparing to swarm. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:221–228Google Scholar
  2. Boch R (1956) Die Tanze der Bienen bei nahen und fernen Trachtquellen. Z Vergl Physiol 38:136–167Google Scholar
  3. Butler CG (1945) The influence of various physical and biological factors of the environment on honeybee activity. An examination of the relationship between activity and nectar concentration and abundance. J Exp Biol 21:5–12Google Scholar
  4. Camazine S, Sneyd J (1991) A mathematical model of colony-level nectar source selection by honey bees: self-organization through simple individual rules. J Theor Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Darwin CR (1877) The effects of cross and self fertilization in the vegetable kingdom. Appleton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Deneubourg JL, Goss S, Franks N, Pasteels JM (1989) The blind leading the blind: modelling chemically mediated army ant raid patterns. J Insect Behav 2:719–725Google Scholar
  7. Esch HA, Bastian JA (1970) How do newly recruited honey bees approach a food site? Z Vergl Physiol 68:175–181Google Scholar
  8. Franks NR (1989) Army ants: a collective intelligence. Am Sci 77:138–145Google Scholar
  9. Franks NR, Fletcher CR (1983) Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and migration: Eciton burchelli on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:261–270Google Scholar
  10. Frisch K von (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Haken H (1978) Synergetics — an introduction. Springer, New York Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayek FA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. Am Econ Rev 35:519–530Google Scholar
  13. Heinrich B (1985) The social physiology of temperature regulation in honeybees. Fortschr Zool 31:393–406Google Scholar
  14. Hofstadter DR (1979) Gödel, Escher, Bach: an eternal golden braid. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Holldobler B (1981) Foraging and spatiotemporal territories in the honey ant Myrmecocystus mimicus Wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:301–314Google Scholar
  16. Jeanne RL (1986) The organization of work in Polybia occidentalis: costs and benefits of specialization in a social wasp. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:333–341Google Scholar
  17. Lindauer M (1948) Über die Einwirkung von Duft- und Geschmacksstoffen sowie anderer Faktoren auf die Tänze der Bienen. Z Vergl Physiol 31:348–412Google Scholar
  18. Lindauer M (1955) Schwarmbienen auf Wohnungssuche. Z Vergl Physiol 37:263–324Google Scholar
  19. Lindauer M (1961) Communication among social bees. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindauer M (1975) Verständigung im Bienenstaat. Fischer, Stuttgart New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Lumsden CJ, Holldobler B (1983) Ritualized combat and intercolony communication in ants. J Theor Biol 100:81–98Google Scholar
  22. Markl H (1985) Manipulation, modulation, information, cognition: some of the riddles of communication. Fortschr Zool 31:163–194Google Scholar
  23. Mautz D (1971) Der Kommunikationseffekt der Schwänzeltänze bei Apis mellifica carnica (Pollm.). Z Vergl Physiol 72:197–220Google Scholar
  24. Nicolis G, Prigogine I (1977) Self-organization in nonequilibrium systems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Núñez JA (1966) Quantitative Beziehungen zwischen den Eigenschaften von Futterquellen und dem Verhalten von Sammelbienen. Z Vergl Physiol 53:142–164Google Scholar
  26. Núñez JA (1970) The relationship between sugar flow and foraging and recruiting behaviour of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) Anim Behav 18:527–538Google Scholar
  27. Núñez JA (1982) Honeybee foraging strategies at a food source in relation to its distance from the hive and the rate of sugar flow. J Apic Res 21:139–150Google Scholar
  28. Pasteels JM, Deneubourg J-L, Goss S (1987a) Self-organization mechanisms in ant societies (1): Trail recruitment to newly discovered food sources. In: Pasteels JM, Deneubourg J-L (eds) From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 155–175Google Scholar
  29. Pasteels JM, Deneubourg J-L, Goss S (1987b) Transmission and amplification of information in a changing environment: the case of insect societies. In: Prigogine I, Sanglier M (eds) Law of nature and human conduct. G.O.R.D.E.S., Bruxelles, pp 129–156Google Scholar
  30. Pattee HH (1976) Physical theories of biological co-ordination. In: Grene M, Mendelsohn E (eds) Topics in the philosophy of biology, vol 27. Boston studies in philosophy of science. Reidel, Boston, pp 153–173Google Scholar
  31. Reeve HK, Gamboa GJ (1983) Colony activity integration in primitively eusocial wasps: the role of the queen (Polistes fuscatus, Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:63–74Google Scholar
  32. Schuá L (1952) Untersuchungen über die Einfluß meteorologische Elemente auf das Verhalten der Bienen. Z Vergl Physio1 34:258–277Google Scholar
  33. Seeley TD (1982) How honeybees find a home. Sci Am 247(Oct):158–168Google Scholar
  34. Seeley TD (1985) Honeybee ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Seeley TD (1986) Social foraging by honeybees: how colonies allocate foragers among patches of flowers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:343–354Google Scholar
  36. Seeley TD (1989) Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colony's nutritional status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:181–199Google Scholar
  37. Seeley TD, Levien RA (1987) A colony of mind. The beehive as thinking machine. The Sciences 27:38–43Google Scholar
  38. Seeley TD, Visscher PK (1988) Assessing the benefits of cooperation in honeybee foraging: search costs, forage quality, and competitive ability. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:229–237Google Scholar
  39. Simon HA (1981) The sciences of the artificial, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  41. Visscher PK, Seeley TD (1982) Foraging strategy of honeybee colonies in a temperate deciduous forest. Ecology 63:1790–1801CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Waddington KD (1982) Honey bee foraging profitability and round dance correlates. J Comp Physiol 148:297–301Google Scholar
  43. Waddington KD (1985) Cost-intake information used in foraging. J Insect Physiol 31:891–897Google Scholar
  44. Weaver N (1979) Possible recruitment of foraging honeybees to high-reward areas of the same plant species. J Apic Res 18:179–183Google Scholar
  45. Wilson EO (1962) Chemical communication among workers of the fire ant Solenopsis saevissima (Fr. Smith). 1. The organization of mass-foraging. Anim Behav 10:134–147Google Scholar
  46. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson EO, Hölldobler B (1988) Dense heterarchies and mass communication as the basis of organization in ant colonies. Trends Ecol Evol 3:65–68Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas D. Seeley
    • 1
  • Scott Camazine
    • 1
  • James Sneyd
    • 2
  1. 1.Section of Neurobiology and Behavior, Mudd HallCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Centre for Mathematical BiologyMathematical InstituteOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations