Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconsidering response threshold models—short-term response patterns in thermoregulating bumblebees

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social insect colonies distribute their workforce with amazing flexibility across a large array of diverse tasks under fluctuating external conditions and internal demands. Deciphering the individual rules of task selection and task performance is at the heart of understanding how colonies can achieve this collective feature. Models play an important role in this endeavor, as they allow us to investigate how the rules of individual behavior give rise to emergent patterns at the colony level. Modulation of individual behavior occurs at many different timescales and to successfully use a model we need to ensure that it applies on the timescale under observation. Here, we focus on short timescales and ask the question whether the most commonly used class of models (response threshold models) adequately describes behavioral modulation on this timescale. We study the fanning behavior of bumblebees on temperature-controlled brood dummies and investigate the effect of (i) stimulus intensity, (ii) repeated task performance, and (iii) task performance feedback. We analyze the timing patterns (rates of task engagement and task disengagement) using survival analysis. Our results show that stimulus intensity does not significantly influence individual task investment at these comparably short timescales. In contrast, repeated task performance and task performance feedback affect individual task investment. We propose an explicitly time-resolved individual-based model and simulate this model to study how patterns of individual task engagement influence task involvement at the group level, finding support for the hypothesis that regulation mechanisms at different timescales can improve performance at the group level in dynamic environments.

Significance statement

Social insect colonies distribute their workforce flexibly across a wide range of tasks. In the absence of a central command structure, it is crucial for our understanding of collective task allocation that we decipher the rules according to which individuals regulate their task engagement. Here, we explore bumblebee thermoregulation. Using temperature-controlled brood dummies. we analyze how temperature, repeated task performance, and performance feedback modulate the timing of individual fanning behavior. We show behavioral modulation in response to task performance. Contrary to common expectation, our results show that in some cases the inability to experience success in performing a task (here cooling the brood when fanning) can result in increased individual task engagement. Based on our analysis, we construct and simulate a detailed model for individual task response to show how this individual-level behavior can impact on group-level performance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charbonneau D, Dornhaus A (2015) When doing nothing is something. How task allocation strategies compromise between flexibility, efficiency, and inactive agents. J Bioecon 17:217–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook CN, Breed MD (2013) Social context influences the initiation and threshold of thermoregulatory behaviour in honeybees. Anim Behav 86:323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc B Methodol 34:187–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornhaus A (2008) Specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant. PLoS Biol 6:e285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte A, Weissing FJ, Pen I, Keller L (2011) An evolutionary perspective on self-organized division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42:91–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R, Visscher PK (1994) Lifetime learning by foraging honey bees. Anim Behav 48:1007–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duong N, Dornhaus A (2012) Ventilation response thresholds do not change with age or self-reinforcement in workers of the bumble bee Bombus impatiens. Insect Soc 59:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fewell JH, Harrison JF (2016) Scaling of work and energy use in social insect colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1047–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner KE, Foster RL, O’Donnell S (2007) Experimental analysis of worker division of labor in bumblebee nest thermoregulation (Bombus huntii, Hymenoptera: Apidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:783–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison LK, Kleineidam CJ, Weidenmüller A (2018) Behavioral flexibility promotes collective consistency in a social insect. Sci Rep 8:15836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautrais J, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg JL, Anderson C (2002) Emergent polyethism as a consequence of increased colony size in insect societies. J Theor Biol 215:363–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie DT (1976) A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions. J Comput Phys 22:403–434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie DT (1977) Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J Phys Chem 81:2340–2361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM (1996) The organization of work in social insect colonies. Nature 380:121–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM (2016) From division of labor to the collective behavior of social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1101–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (2010) Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York City

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi D, Engel MS (2005) Evolution of the insects. Cambridge University Press, New York City

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (2009) The superorganism: the beauty, elegance, and strageness of insect societies. W. W. Norton & Company, New York City

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeanne RL (2016) Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1109–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanson R, Weidenmüller A (2014) Interindividual variability in social insects—proximate causes and ultimate consequences. Biol Rev 89:671–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BR (2009) A self-organizing model for task allocation via frequent task quitting and random walks in the honeybee. Am Nat 174:537–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinbaum DG, Klein M (2012) Survival analysis: a self-learning text, 3rd edn. Springer, New York City

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leighton GM, Charbonneau D, Dornhaus A (2017) Task switching is associated with temporal delays in Temnothorax rugatulus ants. Behav Ecol 28:319–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X (2012) Survival analysis: models and applications. Wiley, West Sussex

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila HR, Seeley TD (2010) Promiscuous honeybee queens generate colonies with a critical minority of waggle-dancing foragers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:875–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer B, Weidenmüller A, Chen R, García J (2015) Collective homeostasis and time-resolved models of self-organised task allocation. In: BICT. ACM, New York City, pp 469–478

  • Myerscough MR, Oldroyd BP (2004) Simulation models of the role of genetic variability in social insect task allocation. Insect Soc 51:146–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naug D (2016) From division of labor to collective behavior: behavioral analyses at different levels. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1113–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell S, Jeanne RL (1992) Forager success increases with experience in Polybia occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Insectes Sociaux 39:451–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Page RE, Mitchell SD (1990) Self organization and adaptation in insect societies. PSA 2:289–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Page RE, Mitchell SD (1998) Self-organization and the evolution of division of labor. Apidologie 29:171–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plowright RC, Plowright CMS (1988) Elitism in social insects: a positive feedback model. In: Jeanne R L (ed) Interindividual behavioral variability in social insects. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 419–431

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ravary F, Lecoutey E, Kaminski G, Châline N, Jaisson P (2007) Individual experience alone can generate lasting division of labor in ants. Curr Biol 17:1308–1312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robson SKA, Traniello JFA (2016) Division of labor in complex societies: a new age of conceptual expansion and integrative analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:995–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld D (1982) Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika 69:239–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultze-Motel P (1991) Heat loss and thermoregulation in a nest of the bumblebee Bombus lapidarius (hymenoptera, apidae). Thermochim Acta 193:57–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwander T, Rosset H, Chapuisat M (2005) Division of labour and worker size polymorphism in ant colonies: the impact of social and genetic factors. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:215–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E, Deneubourg JL (1998) Response threshold reinforcements and division of labour in insect societies. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:327–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripet F, Nonacs P (2004) Foraging for work and age-based polyethism: the roles of age and previous experience on task choice in ants. Ethology 110:863–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo ST, Robinson G E (1997) Learning and task interference by corpse-removal specialists in honey bee colonies. Ethology 103:966–975

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhus C, Kleineidam C J, Roces F, Weidenmüller A (2013) Behavioural plasticity in the fanning response of bumblebee workers: impact of experience and rate of temperature change. Anim Behav 85:27–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1985) The sociogenesis of insect colonies. Science 228:1489–1495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Linda Garrison and Christoph Kleineidam for comments on an early version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a DAAD grant (Division of Labour and Collective Homeostasis in Dynamic Environments, DAAD PPP Australia, joint project C.K. and B.M.) and by the German Research Foundation (DFG, WE 4252/2-1 to A.W.; and the Centre of Excellence 2117 “Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour” (ID: 422037984)).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour & Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstr. 10, 78467, Konstanz, Germany

    Anja Weidenmüller

  2. Faculty of IT, Monash University, 878 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, VIC, 3145, Australia

    Rui Chen & Bernd Meyer

Authors
  1. Anja Weidenmüller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernd Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anja Weidenmüller.

Additional information

Communicated by: D. Naug

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weidenmüller, A., Chen, R. & Meyer, B. Reconsidering response threshold models—short-term response patterns in thermoregulating bumblebees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73, 112 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2709-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2709-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation