Advertisement

Economic Optimisation in Honeybees: Adaptive Behaviour of a Superorganism

  • Ronald Thenius
  • Thomas Schmickl
  • Karl Crailsheim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4095)

Abstract

A honeybee colony has to work highly efficient to survive. Most of a honeybee’s energetic demands are satisfied by consuming carbohydrates which are collected by forager bees in form of nectar from flowering plants. The storage of this nectar is performed by another specialised group of bees. The size of the two workgroups (foragers and receivers) are precisely regulated by dances performed by forager bees, a process that represents adaptive behaviour of a superorganism. We implemented these mechanisms in a simulation of a honeybee colony to investigate the possible advantages of bigger colonies in nectar foraging.

Keywords

Adaptive Behaviour Colony Size Behavioural State Honeybee Coloni Nectar Source 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Frisch, K.v.: Tanzsprache und Orientierung der Bienen. Springer, Heidelberg (1965)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seeley, T.A.: The Wisdom of the Hive. Havard University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schmickl, T., Crailsheim, K.: Cost of environmental fluctuations an benefits of dynamic foraging decisions in honey bees. Adaptive Behavior 12, 263–277 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thenius, R., Schmickl, T., Crailsheim, K.: The “Dance or Work” Problem: Why Do not all Honeybees Dance with Maximum Intensity. In: Pěchouček, M., Petta, P., Varga, L.Z. (eds.) CEEMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3690, pp. 246–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmickl, T., Thenius, R., Crailsheim, K.: Simulating swarm intelligence in honey bees: foraging in differently fluctuating environments. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pp. 273–274 (2005) ISBN 1-59593-010-8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilensky, U.: NetLogo, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL (1999), http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
  7. 7.
    Seeley, T.A., Camazine, S., Sneyd, J.: Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28, 277–290 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hrassnigg, N., Crailsheim, K.: Differences in drone and worker physiology in honeybees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 36, 255–277 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang, M., Seeley, T.D.: Multiple unloadings by nectar foragers in honey bees: a matter of information improvement or crop fullness? Insectes Sociaux 50, 1–10 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson, C., Ratnieks, F.: Task Partitioning in Insect Societies.: I. Effect of colony size on queueing delay and colony ergonomic efficiency. The American Naturalist 154, 521–535 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Thenius
    • 1
  • Thomas Schmickl
    • 1
  • Karl Crailsheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for ZoologyKarl-Franzens University, GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations