Skip to main content
Log in

Individual bumblebees vary in response to disturbance: a test of the defensive reserve hypothesis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Insectes Sociaux Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bees may leave their nest in the event of an attack, but this is not their only response. Here, we examine the behavior of those individuals that remain inside the nest during a disturbance. Specifically, we test the hypothesis that bee workers usually exhibiting high levels of inactivity (i.e., ‘lazy’ bees) may function as defensive reserves that are more likely to respond when the colony is disturbed. We explore this hypothesis by simulating vertebrate attacks by vibrating or blowing carbon dioxide into two colonies on alternating days and measuring the movements and tasks performed by bees inside the nest. Our results show that regardless of the disturbance type, workers increase guarding behavior after a disturbance stops. Although previously inactive bees increased their movement speed inside the nest when the disturbance was vibration, they were not more likely to leave the nest (presumably to attack the simulated attacker) or switch to guarding behavior for any disturbance type. We therefore reject the hypothesis that inactive Bombus impatiens bumblebees act as defensive reserves, and propose alternative hypotheses regarding why many workers remain inactive inside the nest.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baglione V., Canestrari D., Chiarati E., Vera R. and Marcos J.M. 2010. Lazy group members are substitute helpers in carrion crows. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 277: 3275–3282

    Google Scholar 

  • Breed M.D., Robinson G.E. and Page R.E. 1990. Division of labor during honey bee colony defense. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27: 395–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown S.G., Boettner G.H. and Yack J.E. 2007. Clicking caterpillars: acoustic aposematism in Antheraea polyphemus and other Bombycoidea. J. Exp. Biol. 210: 993–1005

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruschini C., Cervo R. and Turillazzi S. 2005. Defensive responses to visual and vibrational stimulations in colonies of the social wasp Polistes dominulus. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 17: 319–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Bura V.L., Fleming A.J. and Yack J.E. 2009. What’s the buzz? Ultrasonic and sonic warning signals in caterpillars of the great peacock moth (Saturnia pyri). Naturwissenschaften 96: 713–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron S.A. 1989. Temporal patterns of division of labor among workers in the primitively eusocial bumble bee, Bombus griseocollis (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ethology 80: 137–151

  • Cole B.J. 1986. The social behavior of Leptothorax allardycei (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): time budgets and the evolution of worker reproduction. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18: 165–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins A.M., Rinderer T.E., Daly H.V., Harbo J.R. and Pesante D. 1989. Alarm pheromone production by two honeybee (Apis mellifera) types. J. Chem. Ecol. 15: 1747–1756

    Google Scholar 

  • Couvillon M.J., Robinson E.J.H., Atkinson B., Child L., Dent K.R. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 2008. En garde: rapid shifts in honeybee, Apis mellifera, guarding behaviour are triggered by onslaught of conspecific intruders. Anim. Behav. 76: 1653–1658

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin A.L. and Field J. 2007. Rank and colony defense against conspecifics in a facultatively eusocial hover wasp. Behav. Ecol. 18: 331–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornhaus A., Holley J.A., Pook V.G., Worswick G. and Franks N.R. 2008. Why do not all workers work? Colony size and workload during emigrations in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 43–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans E., Burns I. and Spivak M. 2007. Befriending Bumble Bees: A Practical Guide to Raising Local Bumble Bees. Regents of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

  • Evans T.A. 2006. Foraging and building in subterranean termites: task switchers or reserve labourers? Insect. Soc. 53: 56–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher D.J.C. 1978. The African bee, Apis mellifera adansonii, in Africa. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 23: 151–171

  • Fletcher L.E. 2007. Vibrational signals in a gregarious sawfly larva (Perga affinis): group coordination or competitive signaling? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61: 1809–1821

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon D.M. 1989. Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants. Anim. Behav. 38: 194–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B. 2004. Bumblebee Economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Herbers J.M. 1983. Social organization in Leptothorax ants: within and between species patterns. Psyche 90: 361–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Jandt J.M. and Dornhaus A. 2009. Spatial organization and division of labour in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens. Anim. Behav. 77: 641–651

    Google Scholar 

  • Jandt J.M. and Dornhaus A. 2011. Competition and cooperation: bumblebee spatial organization and division of labor may affect worker reproduction late in life. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65: 2341–2349

    Google Scholar 

  • Jandt J.M., Huang E. and Dornhaus A. 2009. Weak specialization of workers inside a bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) nest. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 1829–1836

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeanne R.L. 1981. Alarm recruitment, attack behavior, and the role of the alarm pheromone in Polybia occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9: 143–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeanne R.L., Williams N.M. and Yandell B.S. 1992. Age polyethism and defense in a tropical social wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J. Insect Behav. 5: 211–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B.R. 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: 188–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd T.M. 2000. Division of labour in colony defence against vertebrate predators by the social wasp Polistes fuscatus. Anim. Behav. 60: 55–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchner W.H. and Röschard J. 1999. Hissing in bumblebees: an interspecific defence signal. Insect. Soc. 46: 239–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein B.A., Olzsowy K.M., Klein A., Saunders K.M. and Seeley T.D. 2008. Caste-dependent sleep of worker honey bees. J. Exp. Biol. 211: 3028–3040

    Google Scholar 

  • Korb J. and Schmidinger S. 2004. Help or disperse? Cooperation in termites influenced by food conditions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56: 89–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindauer M. 1952. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Arbeitsteilung im Bienenstaat. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 34: 299–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Michener C.D. 1964. Reproductive efficiency in relation to colony size in Hymenopterous societies. Insect. Soc. 11: 317–342

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell S. and Foster R.L. 2001. Thresholds of response in nest thermoregulation by worker bumble bees, Bombus bifarius nearcticus (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ethology 107: 387–399

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell S. and Jeanne R.L. 2002. The nest as fortress: defensive behavior of Polybia emaciata, a mud-nesting eusocial wasp. J. Insect Sci. 2: 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez S. and Cameron S.A. 2003. Army ant attacks by Eciton hamatum and E. rapax (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on nests of the Amazonian bumble bee, Bombus transversalis (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 76: 533–535

  • Rohrig A., Kirchner W.H. and Leuthold R.H. 1999. Vibrational alarm communication in the African fungus-growing termite genus Macrotermes (Isoptera, Termitidae). Insect. Soc. 46: 71–77

  • Schmid-Hempel P. 1990. Reproductive competition and the evolution of work load in social insects. 135: 501–526

  • Sen Sarma M., Fuchs S., Werber C. and Tautz R. 2002. Worker piping triggers hissing for coordinated colony defence in the dwarf honeybee Apis florea. Zoology 105: 215–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindo M. and Dejean A. 2000. Dominance hierarchy in colonies of Belonogaster juncea juncea (Vespidae, Polistinae). Insect. Soc. 47: 158–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher P.K. and Vetter R.S. 1995. Smoke and target color effects on defensive behavior in yellowjacket wasps and bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Vespidae, Apidae) with a description of an electronic attack monitor. J. Econ. Entomol. 88: 579–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidenmüller A. 2004. The control of nest climate in bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) colonies: interindividual variability and self reinforcement in fanning response. Behav. Ecol. 15: 120–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidenmüller A., Kleineidam C. and Tautz J. 2002. Collective control of nest climate parameters in bumblebee colonies. Anim. Behav. 63: 1065–1071

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Diane Simon in her assistance in data collection. Judie Bronstein, Dan Papaj, John Pepper, Diana Wheeler, Maggie Couvillon, and Anna Himler provided feedback on the manuscript. Research supported through the College of Science, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, and NSF grant to AD (grant no. IOS 0841756).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. M. Jandt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jandt, J.M., Robins, N.S., Moore, R.E. et al. Individual bumblebees vary in response to disturbance: a test of the defensive reserve hypothesis. Insect. Soc. 59, 313–321 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-012-0222-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-012-0222-1

Keywords

Navigation