Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 251–268 | Cite as

Swarm-intelligent foraging in honeybees: benefits and costs of task-partitioning and environmental fluctuations

Swam Intelligence

Abstract

For honeybee colonies, it is crucial to collect nectar in an efficient way. Empiric experiments showed that the process of decision making, which allows the colony to select the optimal nectar source, is based on individual decisions. These decisions are made by returning nectar foragers, which alter their dancing behaviours based on the nectar source’s quality and based on the experienced search time for a receiver bee. Nectar receivers, which represent a shared limited resource for foragers, can modulate the foraging decisions performed by the colony. We investigated the interplay between foragers and receivers by using a multi-agent simulation. Therefore, we implemented agents which are capable of a limited set of behaviours and which spend energy according to their behaviour. In simulation experiments, we tested colonies with various receiver-to-forager ratios and measured colony-level results like the emerging foraging patterns and the colony’s net honey gain. We show that the number of receivers prominently regulates the foraging workforce. All tested environmental fluctuations are predicted to cause energetic costs for the colony. Task-partitioning additionally influences the colony’s decision-making concerning the question whether or not the colony sticks to a nectar source after environmental fluctuations.

Keywords

Swarm intelligence Honey bees Task partitioning Foraging Equal foraging distribution Cross inhibition Choice Nectar economics 

References

  1. 1.
    Sumpter DJT, Pratt SC (2003) A modeling framework for understanding social insect foraging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol (53):131–144Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartholdi JJ, Seeley TD, Tovey C, Vate JV (1992) The pattern and effectiveness of forager allocation among flower patches in honey bee colonies. J Theor Biol 160:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seeley TD, Camazine S, Sneyd J (1991) Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28(4):277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox MD, Myerscough MR (2003) A flexible model of foraging by a honey bee colony: the effects of individual behaviour on foraging success. J Theor Biol 223:179–197Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Vries H, Biesmeijer JC (2002) Self-organization in collective honeybee foraging: emergence of symmetry breaking, cross inhibition and equal harvest-rate distribution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51(6):557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Vries H, Biesmeijer JC (1998) Modelling collective foraging by means of individual behaviour rules in honey-bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson C, Ratnieks FLW (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies. I. Effect of colony size on queueing delay and colony ergonomic efficiency. Am Nat 154:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ratnieks FLW, Anderson C (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies II: use of queueing delay information in recruitment. Am Nat 154(5): 536–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    von Frisch K (1965) Tanzsprache und Orientierung der Bienen. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seeley TD (1992) The tremble dance of the honey bee: message and meanings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seeley TD, Camazine S, Sneyd J (1991) Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28(4):277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grüter C, Farina WM (2009) The honeybee waggle dance: can we follow the steps? Trends Ecol Evol 24(5):242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seeley TD (1994) Honey bee foragers as sensory units of their colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A, Houston AI (1985) Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crop. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson BR (2003) Organization of work in the honeybee: a compromise between division of labour and behavioural flexibility. Proc Royal Soc Lond B 270(1511):147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seeley TD (1982) Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:287–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson BR (2002) Reallocation of labor in honeybee colonies during heat stress: the relative roles of task switching and the activation of reserve labor. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmickl T, Crailsheim K Hopomo (2007) A model of honeybee intracolonial population dynamics and resource management. Ecol Model 204(1–2): 219–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2001) Cannibalism and early capping: strategy of honeybee colonies in times of experimental pollen shortages. J Comp Physiol A 187(7):541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seeley TD (1992) The tremble dance of the honey bee: message and meanings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seeley TD (1989) Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colonys nutritional status. Behav Ecol and Sociobiol 24:181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmickl T, Thenius R, Crailsheim K (2005) Simulating swarm intelligence in honeybees: foraging in differently fluctuating environments. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO) 2005, Washington, DC, pp 273–274Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2004) Costs of environmental fluctuations and benefits of dynamic decentralized foraging decisions in honey bees. Adapt Behav Anim Anim Software Agents Rob Adapt Syst 12:263–277Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thenius R, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2006) Economic optimisation in honeybees: adaptive behaviour of a superorganism. In: Nolfi S, Baldassarre G, Calabretta R, Hallam JCT, Marocco D, Meyer JA, Miglino O, Parisi D (eds) From animals to animats 9: 9th international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior, SAB 2006. Volume 4095 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI). Springer, Berlin, pp 725–737Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Russell SJ, Norvig P (1995) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bonabeau E, Dorigo M, Theraulaz G (1999) Swarm intelligence: from natural to artificial systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thenius R, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2005) The dance or work problem: why do not all honeybees dance with maximum intensity. Lect Notes Artif Intell 3690:246–255Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honey bee colonies. Havard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang M, Seeley TD (2003) Multiple unloadings by nectar foragers in honey bees: a matter of information improvement or crop fullness?. Insectes Sociaux 50:330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Castro L (2007) Fundamentals of natural computing: an overview. Phys Life Rev 4(1):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Anderson C (1998) Simulation of the feedbacks and regulation of recruitment dancing in honey bees. Adv Compl Syst 1:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gregson A, Hart A, Holcombe M, Ratnieks F (2003) Partial nectar loads as a cause of multiple nectar transfer in the honey bee (apis mellifera): a simulation model. J Theor Biol 222(1): 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) Analysing honeybees’ division of labour in broodcare by a multi-agent model. In: Bullock S, Noble J, Watson R, Bedau MA (eds) Artificial life XI: proceedings of the eleventh international conference on the simulation and synthesis of living systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 529–536Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) An individual-based model of task selection in honeybees. In: Goebel R, Siekmann J, Wahlster W (eds) From animals to animats 10. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 5040, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 383–392Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) Taskselsim: a model of the self-organization of the division of labour in honeybees. Math Comput Model Dyn Syst 14:101–125MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thenius R, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) Optimisation of a honeybee-colony’s energetics via social learning based on queuing delays. Connect Sci 20(2):193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wedde HF, Farooq M, Pannenbaecker T, Vogel B, Mueller C, Meth J, Jeruschkat R (2005) Beeadhoc: an energy efficient routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks inspired by bee behavior. In: GECCO ’05: proceedings of the 2005 conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, New York, pp 153–160Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wedde HF, Farooq M, Zhang Y (2004) Beehive: An efficient fault-tolerant routing algorithm inspired by honey bee behavior. In: Lecture notes in computer science. Number 3172, Springer, Berlin, pp 83–94Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tovey C (2004) The honey bee algorithm: a biological inspired approach to internet server optimization. Engineering Enterprise, Spring, pp 13–15Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pham D, Ghanbarzadeh A, Koc E, Otri S, Rahim S, Zaidi M (2006) The bees algorithm, a novel tool for complex optimisation problems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international virtual conference on intelligent production machines and systems (IPROMS 2006), Elsevier, pp 454–459Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dorigo M, Stützle T (2004) Ant colony optimization (Bradford Books). The MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dorigo M, Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G (2000) Ant algorithms and stigmergy. Future Gener Comput Syst 16(9):851–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bonabeau E, Henaux F, Guérin S, Snyers D, Kuntz P, Theraulaz G (January 1998) Routing in telecommunications networks with “smart” ant-like agents. Working papers 98-01-003, Santa Fe InstituteGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sugawara K, Kazama T, Watanabe T (2004) Foraging behavior of interacting robots with virtual pheromone. In: Proceedings of 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, pp 3074–3079Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Krieger MJB, Billeter JB (2000) The call of duty: self organised task allocation in a population of up to twelve mobile robots. Rob Auton Syst 30:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Payton D, Daily M, Estowski R, Howard M, Lee C (2001) Pheromone robotics. Auton Rob 11(3):319–324MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Payton D, Estkowski R, Howrad M (2005) Pheromonic robotics and the logic of virtual pheromones. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3342:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Garnier S, Jost C, Jeanson R, Gautrais J, Asadpour M, Caprari G, Theraulaz G (2005) Aggregation behaviour as a source of collective decision in a group of cockroach-like-robots. In: Capcarrere M (ed) Advances in artificial life: 8th European conference, ECAL 2005. Vol 3630 of LNAI. Springer, Berlin, pp 169–178Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schmickl T, Thenius R, Möslinger C, Radspieler G, Kernbach S, Crailsheim K (2008) Get in touch: cooperative decision making based on robot-to-robot collisions. Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst 18(1):133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hamann H, Wörn H, Crailsheim K, Schmickl T (2008) Spatial macroscopic models of a bio-inspired robotic swarm algorithm. In: IEEE/RSJ 2008 international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS’08). IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, pp 1415–1420Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schmickl T, Möslinger C, Thenius R, Crailsheim K (2007) Bio-inspired navigation of autonomous robots in heterogenous environments. Int J Factory Autom Rob Soft Comput 3:164–170Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schmickl T, Möslinger C, Thenius R, Crailsheim K (2007) Individual adaptation allows collective path-finding in a robotic swarm. Int J Factory Autom Rob Soft Comput 4:102–108Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) Trophallaxis within a robotic swarm: bio-inspired communication among robots in a swarm. Auton Rob 25:171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Schmickl
    • 1
  • Ronald Thenius
    • 1
  • Karl Crailsheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Life Lab of the Department of ZoologyUniversity of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations