Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Information Processing in Social Insects pp 115–139Cite as

Birkhäuser

Response thresholds and division of labor in insect colonies

  • Chapter

Summary

Division of labor in social insects can be explained at least in part by variation among workers in response thresholds for task-specific stimuli. In this chapter we review the origins of the response threshold concept in physiology and ethology, and show how it can be used to explain division of labor. Temporal polyethism and physical caste polyethism, as well as hormonal, genetic, and learning effects on task performance, may be interpreted as the results of changes in response thresholds. We then provide a more speculative discussion of the implications of the response threshold concept for understanding the behavioral programs of workers and the organization of colonies. We argue that the response threshold concept is a logical starting point for developing explanations for the proximate basis of division of labor, and that further development of this concept may be a necessary and critical step in the study of social insect behavior. In addition, more experimental work is needed to demonstrate variation in response thresholds among workers, and to show that this variation causes division of labor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  2. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  3. Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 37: 637–665

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gordon DM (1989) Caste and change in social insects. In: PH Harvey, L Partridge (eds): Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology, vol 6. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 55–72

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson EO (1976) Behavioral discretization and the number of castes in an ant species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1: 63–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson EO (1985) Between-caste aversion as a basis for division of labor in the ant Pheidole pubiventris (Hymenoptera: Form-icidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17: 35–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson EO (1985) The sociogenesis of insect colonies. Science 28: 1489–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Robinson GE (1987) Regulation of honey bee age polyethism by juvenile hormone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20: 329–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Calabi P (1988) Behavioral flexibility in Hymenoptera: a re-examination of the concept of caste. In: J Trager (ed): Advances in myrmecology. EJ Brill Press, Leiden, 237–258

    Google Scholar 

  10. Robinson GE, Page RE (1989) Genetic basis for division of labor in an insect society. In: MD Breed, RE Page (eds): The genetics of social evolution. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 61–81

    Google Scholar 

  11. Page RE, Robinson GE (1991) The genetics of division of labour in honey bee colonies. Adv Insect Physiol 23: 117–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Detrain C, Pasteeis JM (1991) Caste differences in behavioral thresholds as a basis for polyethism during food recruitment in the ant Pheidole pallidula (Nyl.) (Hymenoptera: Myrmicinae). J Insect Behav 4: 157–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Watson JB (1930) Behaviorism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lorenz K (1950) The comparative method in studying innate behavior patterns. Symp Soc Exp Biol 4: 221–268

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tinbergen N (1952) The study of instinct. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Robinson GE (1987) Modulation of alarm pheromone perception in the honey bee: evidence for division of labor based on hormonally regulated response thresholds. J Comp Physiol 160: 613–619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson GE, Page RE (1995) Genotypic constraints on plasticity for corpse removal in honey bee colonies. Anim Behav 49: 867–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Downing HA, Jeanne RL (1988) Nest construction by the paper wasp Polistes: a test of stigmergy theory. Anim Behav 36: 1729–1739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Allan SA, Slessor KN, Winston ML, King GGS (1987) The influence of age and task specialization on the production and perception of honey bee pheromones. J Insect Phys 33: 917–922

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Page RE, Erber J, Fondrk MK (1998) The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Comp Physiol 182: 489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jaisson P, Fresneau D, Lachaud J-P (1988) Individual traits of social behavior in ants. In: RL Jeanne (ed): Interindividual behavioral variability in social insects. Westview Press, Boulder CO, 1–52

    Google Scholar 

  23. Plowright RC, Plowright CMS (1987) Elitism in social insects: a positive feedback model. In: RL Jeanne (ed): Interindividual behavioral variability in social insects. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 419–431

    Google Scholar 

  24. Robinson GE, Vargo EL (1997) Juvenile hormone in adult eusocial Hymenoptera: gonadotropin and behavioral pacemaker. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 35: 559–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Robinson GE, Page RE, Strambi C, Strambi A (1989) Hormonal and genetic control of behavioral integration in honey bee colonies. Science 246: 109–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sullivan JP, Jassim O, Robinson GE, Fahrbach SE (1996) Foraging behavior and mushroom bodies in allatectomized honey bees. Soc Neuro Abst 22: 1144

    Google Scholar 

  27. Robinson GE, Huang Z-Y, Page RE (1994) Temporal polyethism in social insects is a developmental process. Anim Behav 48: 467–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Collins AM (1980) Effect of age on the response to alarm pheromones by caged honeybees. Ann Entomol Soc Amer 73: 307–309

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kolmes SA, Fergusson-Kolmes L (1989) Stinging behavior and residual value of worker honey bees (Apis mellifera). J N Y Entomol Soc 97: 218–231

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  31. Huang Z-Y, Robinson GE (1996) Regulation of honey bee division of labor by colony age demography. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39: 147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tofts C, Franks NR (1992) Doing the right thing: ants, honeybees, and naked mole rats. Trends Ecol Evol 7: 346–349

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg J-L (1998) Fixed response thresholds and the regulation of division of labour in insect societies. Bull Math Biol 60: 753–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wilson EO (1984) The relation between caste ratios and division of labor in the ant genus Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formi-cidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16: 89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wheeler DE, Nijhout HF (1984) Soldier determination in the ant Pheidole bicarinata: inhibition by adult soldiers. J Insect Physiol 30: 127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg J-L (1996) Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Proc R Soc Lond B 263: 1565–1569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Detrain C, Pasteeis JM (1992) Caste polyethism and collective defense in the ant Pheidole pallidula: the outcome of quantitative differences in recruitment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29: 405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Robinson GE, Page RE (1988) Genetic determination of guarding and undertaking in honey bec colonies Nature 333: 356–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fewell JH, Page RE (1993) Genotypic variation in foraging responses to environmental stimuli by honey bees, Apismellifera. Experientia 49: 1106–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Guzman-Novoa E, Page RE (1994) Genetic dominance and worker interactions affect honeybee colony defense. Behav Ecol 5: 91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lenoir A (1987) Factors determining polyethism in social insects. In: JM Pasteeis, J-L Deneubourg (eds): From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, 219–240

    Google Scholar 

  42. Deneubourg J-L, Goss S, Pasteeis JM, Fresneau D, Lachaud J-L (1987) Self-organization mechanisms in ant societies (II): learning in foraging and division of labor. In: JM Pasteeis, J-L Deneubourg (eds): From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, 177–196

    Google Scholar 

  43. Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E, Deneubourg J-L (1998) Response threshold reinforcement and division of labour in insect societies. Proc R Soc London B 265: 327–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Theraulaz G, Goss S, Gervet J, Deneubourg J-L (1991) Task differentiation in Polistes wasp colonies: a model for self-organizing groups of robots. In: J Meyer, SW Wilson (eds): From animals to animats. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 346–355

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gordon DM, Goodwin BC, Trainor LEH (1992) A parallel distributed model of the behaviour of ant colonies. J Theor Biol 156: 293–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Trumbo S, Huang Z-Y, Robinson G (1997) Division of labor between undertaker specialists and other middle-age workers in honey bee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41: 151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Page RE, Mitchell SD (1991) Self organization and adaptation in social insects. In: A Fione, M Forbes, L Wessels (eds): PSA 1990, vol 2. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI, 289–298

    Google Scholar 

  48. Page RE, Mitchell SD (1998) Self organization and the evolution of division of labor. Apidologie 29: 101–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wilson EO (1983) Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta). III. Ergonomic resiliency in foraging by A. Cephalotes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14: 47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Calderone NW, Page RE (1992) Effects of interactions among genotypically diverse nestmates on task specialization by foraging honey bees (Apis mellifera). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30: 219–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mittenthal J, Baskin A, Reinke R (1992) Patterns of structure and their evolution in the organization of organisms: modules, matching, and compaction. In: J Mittenthal, A Baskin (eds): The principles of organization in organisms. Addison Wesley, New York, 321–332

    Google Scholar 

  52. Markl H (1985) Manipulation, modulation, information, cognition: some of the riddles of communication. In: B Hölldobler, M Lindauer (eds): Experimental behavioral ecology and sociobiology. Sinauer Press, Sunderland MA, 163–194

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wilson EO, Hölldobler B (1988) Dense heterarchies and mass communication as the basis of organization in ant colonies. Trends Ecol Evol 3: 65–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Seeley TD (1994) Honey bee foragers as sensory units of their colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34: 51–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nicholls JG, Martin AR, Wallace BG (1992) From neuron to brain. Sinauer Press, Sunderland, MA

    Google Scholar 

  56. Seeley TD, Kühnholz S, Weidenmüller A (1996) The honey bee’s tremble dance stimulates additional bees to function as nectar receivers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39: 419–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schneider SS, Stamps JA, Gary NE (1986) The vibration dance of the honey bee. I. Communication regulating foraging on two time scales. Anim Behav 34: 377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schneider SS (1987) The modulation of worker activity by the vibration dance of the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Ethology 74: 211–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Painter-Kurt S, Schneider SS, Age and behavior of honey bees that perform vibration dances on workers. Ethology 104: 457-473

    Google Scholar 

  60. Seeley TD, Weidenmüller A, Kühnholz S (1998) The shaking signal of the honey bee informs workers to prepare for greater activity. Ethology 104: 10–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nieh JC (1998) The honey bee shaking signal: function and design of a modulatory communication signal. Behav Ecol Socio-biol 42: 23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Schneider SS, Visscher PK, Camazine S (1998) Vibration signal behavior of waggle-dancers in swarms of the honey bee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ethology 104: 963–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Reeve HK, Gamboa GJ (1983) Colony activity integration in primitvely eusocial wasps: the role of the queen (Polistes fuscatus, Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13: 63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Reeve HK, Gamboa GJ (1987) Queen regulation of worker foraging in paper wasps: a social feedback control system. Behaviour 102: 147–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Breed MD, Gamboa GJ (1977) Behavioral control of workers by queens in primitively eusocial bees. Science 195: 694–696

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Berton F, Lenoir A, Le Roux G, Le Roux A-M (1992) Effect of orphaning on the effectiveness of queen attraction and on worker behavioral repertoire in Cata-glyphis cursor (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). Sociobiology 20(3): 301–313

    Google Scholar 

  67. von Frisch K (1967) The dance language and orientation of honey bees. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  68. Traniello JFA, Robson SK (1995) Trail and territorial communication in social insects. In: RT Cardé, WJ Bell (eds): Chemical ecology of insects, vol 2. Chapman and Hall, London, 241–286

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Huang Z-Y, Robinson GE (1992) Honey bee colony integration: worker-worker interactions mediate hormonally regulated plasticity in division of labor. Proc Natl Acad Sei USA 89: 11726–11729

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Delcomyn F (1997) Foundations of neurobiology. W H Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  71. Seeley TD (1982) The adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11: 287–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sendova-Franks AB, Franks NR (1995) Spatial relationships within nests of the ant Leptothorax unifasciatus (Latr.) and their implications for the division of labour. Anim Behav 50: 121–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Schneider SS (1986) The vibration dance activity of successful foragers of the honeybee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 59: 699–705

    Google Scholar 

  74. Powers WT, Clark RK, McFarland RL (1960) A general feedback theory of human behavior: part I. Percept Motor Skills 11: 71–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. O’Donnell S (1998) Effects of experimental forager removals on division of labour in the primitively eusocial wasp Polistes instabilis (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Behaviour 135: 173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Wilson EO, Durlach NI, Roth LM (1958) Chemical releasers of necrophoric behavior in ants. Psyche 65: 108–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Gordon DM (1983) Dependence of necrophoric response to oleic acid on social context in the ant Pogonomyrmex badius. J Chem Ecol 9: 105–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Robson SK, Beshers SN (1997) Division of labour and “foraging for work”: simulating reality versus the reality of simulations. Anim Behav 53: 214–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Samuel N. Beshers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gene E. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jay E. Mittenthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université Libre de Bruxelles, 50 Av. F.D. Roosevelt, CP.160/12, B-1050, Bruxelles, Belgium

    Claire Detrain , Jean Louis Deneubourg  & Jacques M. Pasteels ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Basel AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Beshers, S.N., Robinson, G.E., Mittenthal, J.E. (1999). Response thresholds and division of labor in insect colonies. In: Detrain, C., Deneubourg, J.L., Pasteels, J.M. (eds) Information Processing in Social Insects. Birkhäuser, Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8739-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8739-7_7

  • Publisher Name: Birkhäuser, Basel

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-0348-9751-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-0348-8739-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation