Abstract
Most foraging honeybees specialize in either pollen or nectar collection, although some do alternate between both resources. Little is known about this behavioral plasticity and the factors that control it. We studied how the profitability of nectar sources influences the transition of bees between nectar and pollen collection at the individual response level, by measuring the number of switches when the productivity of a sugar source (either sugar concentration or solution flow rate) was experimentally decreased or increased. At the social level, we studied whether the quality of the nectar that circulates inside a hive alters the rate of incoming pollen foragers. We then calculated the ratio between pollen and non-pollen foragers, before and after the hives were fed either a 3 or a 50% w/w sugar solution. In the first experiment, we showed that bees that persisted in visiting the feeder when offered low-quality solutions were more likely to switch to pollen than those foraging only on highly concentrated solutions. Looking at the collective responses, the ratio of pollen over non-pollen foragers increased after the input of a low-quality sugar solution and decreased after the input of a high-quality sugar solution. We conclude that the profitability of nectar sources interacts with the sugar responsiveness of bees, thus driving foraging preferences for pollen and modifying the pollen foraging activity of the colony. The results also show that bees integrate gustatory information from both rewarding resources based on local cues available either at the foraging site or inside the hive.
Significance statement
Switching between resource types could be adaptive for honeybees that specialize in either nectar or pollen foraging. This would allow them to react to changes in the foraging environment. Although we observed that switching behavior is constrained by the responsiveness of bees to sugar, the switch from nectar to pollen (and vice versa) is an active decision of the bees in response to the decreasing or increasing profitability of pollen versus nectar sources. Given the ability of some bees to switch between foraging tasks based solely on gustatory cues available at the foraging site, we investigated whether source-related information conveyed inside the hive also affects colony foraging activity towards nectar and pollen resources. We observed that behavioral plasticity of individuals can be integrated into a social response by colonies reallocating their foraging forces according to the food-related information available inside the hive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arenas A, Farina WM (2012) Learned olfactory cues affect pollen-foraging preferences in honeybees, Apis mellifera. Anim Behav 83:1023–1033
Arenas A, Farina WM (2014) Bias to pollen odors is affected by early exposure and foraging experience. J Insect Physiol 66:28–36
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2011) lme4: linear mixed effects model using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375–42
Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135
Camazine S (1993) The regulation of pollen foraging by honey bees: how foragers assess the colony’s need for pollen. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:265–272
Conti I, Medrzycki P, Argenti C, Meloni M, Vecchione V, Boi M, Mariotti MG (2016) Sugar and protein content in different monofloral pollens-building a database. B Insectol 69:318–320
Crailsheim K (1998) Trophallactic interactions in the adult honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Apidologie 29:97–112
Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, West Sussex
Dreller C, Page RE Jr, Fondrk MK (1999) Regulation of pollen foraging in honeybee colonies: effects of young brood, stored pollen, and empty space. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:227–233
Eckert CD, Winston ML, Ydenberg RC (1994) The relationship between population size, amount of brood, and individual foraging behaviour in the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Oecologia 97:248–255
Farrar CL (1944) Productive management of honeybee colonies in the Northern States (No. Folleto 1645)
Fewell JH, Page RE (1993) Genotypic variation in foraging responses to environmental stimuli by honey bees, Apis mellifera. Cell Mol Life Sci 49:1106–1112
Fewell JH, Winston ML (1992) Colony state and regulation of pollen foraging in the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:387–393
Free JB (1963) The flower constancy of honeybees. J Anim Ecol 32:119–131
Free JB (1964) The behaviour of honeybees on sunflowers (Helianthus annuus L.). J Appl Ecol 1:19–27
Gil M, De Marco RJ, Menzel R (2007) Learning reward expectations in honeybees. Learn Mem 14:491–496
Grosclaude FE, Núñez JA (1998) Foraging pauses and their meaning as an economic strategy in the honeybee Apis mellifera L. J Comp Physiol A 183:61–68
Hanley ME, Franco M, Pichon S, Darvill B, Goulson D (2008) Breeding system, pollinator choice and variation in pollen quality in British herbaceous plants. Funct Ecol 22:592–598
Herbert EW Jr, Shimanuki H (1978) Chemical composition and nutritive value of bee-collected and bee-stored pollen. apidologie 9:33–40
Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934352
Hrassnigg N, Crailsheim K (1998) The influence of brood on the pollen consumption of worker bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Insect Physiol 44:393–404
Jeanne RL (1986) The evolution of the organization of work in social insects. Monit Zool Ital 20:19–33
Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1993) Techniques for pollination biologists. University Press of Colorado, Boulder
Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33
Lindauer M (1952) Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Arbeitsteilung im Bienenstaat. Z Vergi Physiol 34:299–345
Lindauer M (1955) The water economy and temperature regulation of the honeybee colony. Bee World 62-72(81–92):105–1I1
Martinez A, Farina WM (2008) Honeybees modify gustatory responsiveness after receiving nectar from foragers within the hive. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:529–535
McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, vol 37. CRC press
Moeller FE (1961) The relationship between colony populations and honey production as affected by honey bee stock lines. Prod Res Rep US Dept Agric
Núñez JA (1977) Nectar flow by melliferous flora and gathering flow by Apis mellifera Ligustica. J Insect Physiol 23:265–275
Núñez JA (1979) Comparative study of thermoregu1ation between European and Africanized Apis mellifera in Brazil. J Apic Res 18:116–121
Nye WP, Mackensen O (1965) Preliminary report on selection and breeding of honeybees for alfalfa pollen collection. J Apic Res 4:43–48
Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton
Page RE Jr, 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 A 182:489–500
Page RE Jr, Scheiner R, Erber J, Amdam GV (2006) The development and evolution of division of labor and foraging specialization in a social insect (Apis mellifera L.). Curr Top Dev Biol 74:253–286
Page RE, Robinson GE, Fondrk MK, Nasr M (1995) Effects of worker genotypic diversity on honey bee colony development and behavior (Apis mellifera L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:387–396
Pankiw T, Nelson M, Page RE, Fondrk MK (2004) The communal crop: modulation of sucrose response thresholds of pre-foraging honey bees with incoming nectar quality. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:286-292.
Pankiw T, Page RE Jr (2000) Response thresholds to sucrose predict foraging behavior in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:265–267
Pankiw T, Waddington KD, Page RE (2001) Modulation of sucrose response thresholds in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.): influence of genotype, feeding, and foraging experience. J Comp Physiol A 187:293–301
Percival MS (1955) The presentation of pollen in certain angio-sperms and tis collection by Apis mellifera. New Phytol 54:353–368
Pernal SF, Currie RW (2002) Discrimination and preferences for pollen-based cues by foraging honeybees, Apis mellifera L. Anim Behav 63:369–390
R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria Available online at: http://www.R-project.org/
Robinson GE, Page RE (1989) Genetic determination of nectar foraging, pollen foraging, and nest-site scouting in honey bee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:317–323
Rotjan R, Calderone N, Seeley T (2002) How a honey bee colony mustered additional labor for the task of pollen foraging. Apidologie 33:367–373
Scheiner R, Page RE, Erber J (2004) Sucrose responsiveness and behavioral plasticity in honey bees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 35:133–142
Seeley TD (1985) Honey bee ccology: a stud in adaptation in social lie. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
Seeley TD (1986) Social foraging by honeybees: how colonies allocate foragers among patches of flowers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:343–354
Seeley TD (1989) Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colony's nutritional status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:181–199
Seeley T (1995) The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honey bee colonies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Seeley TD, Towne WF (1992) Tactics of dance choice in honey bees: do foragers compare dances? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:59–69
Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap Press of Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge
Wilson EO (1985) The sociogenesis of insect colonies. Science 228:1489–1495
Winston ML (1987) The Biology of the Honey Bee. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) GLM and GAM for count data. In: Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, pp 209–243
Acknowledgements
We thank W. Farina for the fruitful comments and discussions at the early stage of this project and to MJ. Corriale for help with statistical analyses.
Funding
This study was partly supported by Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and by grants from Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (ANPCYT), University of Buenos Aires and CONICET to A. Arenas.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by D. Naug
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Figure 1S
Switching behaviour from pollen to sugar feeders of increasing sugar concentration. Percentage of labeled honeybees that changed their foraging preferences to sugar solutions throughout 4 tests of increasing concentrations. Bars show medians ± SE of 9 independent groups of bees. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05; Tukey’s test). (PNG 165 kb)
Figure 2S
Ratio of incoming pollen over incoming non-pollen foragers according to the gustatory input offered into the hive. Ratio of incoming foragers with and without pollen loads were counted before (T0) and after (T1) the offering of 3% and 50% w/w sugar solutions or at the same time (T0 and T1) even when no solution was offered. Box plots show medians, quartiles and 5th and 95th percentiles from 19 hives. Asterisks indicate statistical differences among ratios (**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; simple effects). (PNG 87 kb)
Figure 3S
Sugar responsiveness of in-hive bees according to the quality of the sugar solution offered inside the hive. Mean proboscis extension response (PER) scores of bees captured from two groups of hives before (T0) and 60 min after (T1) they were fed either 3% or 50% w/w sugar solution. Box plots show medians, quartiles and 5th and 95th percentiles and outliers from 10 hives. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among PER scores (p < 0.05; simple effects). (PNG 75 kb)
ESM 1
(DOCX 18 kb)
ESM 2
(XLSX 23 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arenas, A., Kohlmaier, M.G. Nectar source profitability influences individual foraging preferences for pollen and pollen-foraging activity of honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73, 34 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2644-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2644-5