Library

X
feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Reproductive competition in queenless honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera L.) (1994)
    Springer
    Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 35 (1994), S. 99-107 
    Details
    ISSN: 1432-0762
    Keywords: Key words Apis mellifera ; Genetics ; Drone production ; Allozymes ; Reproductive conflict
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Biology
    Notes: Abstract Previously we reported that there are subfamily differences in drone production in queenless honey bee colonies, but these biases are not always explained by subfamily differences in oviposition behavior. Here we determine whether these puzzling results are best explained by either inadequate sampling of the laying worker population or reproductive conflict among workers resulting in differential treatment of eggs and larvae. Using colonies composed of workers from electrophoretically distinct subfamilies, we collected samples of adult bees engaged in the following behavior: “true” egg laying, “false” egg laying, indeterminate egg laying, egg cannibalism, or nursing (contact with larvae). We also collected samples of drone brood at four different ages: 0 to 2.5-h-old eggs, 0 to 24-h-old eggs, 3 to 8-day-old larvae, and 9 to 14-day-old larvae and pupae. Allozyme analyses revealed significant subfamily differences in the likelihood of exhibiting egg laying, egg cannibalism, and nursing behavior, as well as significant subfamily differences in drone production. There were no subfamily differences among the different types of laying workers collected from each colony, suggesting that discrepancies between subfamily biases in egg-laying behavior and drone production are not due to inadequate sampling of the laying worker population. Subfamily biases in drone brood production within a colony changed significantly with brood age. Laying workers had significantly more developed ovaries than either egg cannibals or nurses, establishing a physiological correlate for the observed behavioral genetic differences. These results suggest there is reproductive conflict among subfamilies and individuals within queenless colonies of honey bees. The implications of these results for the evolution of reproductive conflict, in both queenright and queenless contexts, are discussed.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002650050075
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Paper (German National Licenses)
    Fulltext
  • 2
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Behavioral and life-history components of division of labor in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) (1994)
    Springer
    Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 34 (1994), S. 117-409 
    Details
    ISSN: 1432-0762
    Keywords: Social insects ; Apis mellifera ; Division of labor ; Genetics
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Biology
    Notes: Abstract Variability exists among worker honey bees for components of division of labor. These components are of two types, those that affect foraging behavior and those that affect life-history characteristics of workers. Variable foraging behavior components are: the probability that foraging workers collect (1) pollen only; (2) nectar only; and (3) pollen and nectar on the same trip. Life history components are: (1) the age the workers initiate foraging behavior; (2) the length of the foraging life of a worker; and (3) worker length of life. We show how these components may interact to change the social organization of honey bee colonies and the lifetime foraging productivity of individual workers. Selection acting on foraging behavior components may result in changes in the proportion of workers collecting pollen and nectar. Selection acting on life-history components may affect the size of the foraging population and the distribution of workers between within nest and foraging activities. We suggest that these components define possible sociogenic “pathways” through which colony-level natural selection can change social organization. These pathways may be analogous to developmental pathways in the morphogenesis of individual organisms because small changes in behavioral or life history components of individual workers may lead to major changes in the organizational structure of colonies.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00167332
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Paper (German National Licenses)
    Fulltext
  • 3
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Effects of worker genotypic diversity on honey bee colony development and behavior (Apis mellifera L.) (1995)
    Springer
    Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 36 (1995), S. 387-396 
    Details
    ISSN: 1432-0762
    Keywords: Polyandry ; Genotypic diversity ; Colony fitness ; Social insects ; Behavioral genetics
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Biology
    Notes: Abstract There have been numerous reports of genetic influences on division of labor in honey bee colonies, but the effects of worker genotypic diversity on colony behavior are unclear. We analyzed the effects of worker genotypic diversity on the phenotypes of honey bee colonies during a critical phase of colony development, the “nest initiation” phase. Five groups of colonies were studied (n = 5–11 per group); four groups had relatively low genotypic diversity compared to the fifth group. Colonies were derived from queens that were instrumentally inseminated with the semen of four different drones according to one of the following mating schemes: group A, 4 A-source drones; group B, 4 B-source drones; group C, 4 C-source drones; group D, 4 D-source drones; and group E, 1 drone of each of the A-D drone sources. There were significant differences between colonies in groups A-D for 8 out of 19 colony traits. Because the queens in all of these colonies were super sisters, the observed differences between groups were primarily a consequence of differences in worker genotypes. There were very few differences (2 out of 19 traits) between colonies with high worker genotypic diversity (group E) and those with low diversity (groups A-D combined). This is because colonies with greater diversity tended to have phenotypes that were average relative to colonies with low genotypic diversity. We hypothesize that the averaging effect of genotypic variability on colony phenotypes may have selective advantages, making colonies less likely to “fail” because of inappropriate colony responses to changing environmental conditions.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00177334
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Paper (German National Licenses)
    Fulltext
  • 4
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Reproductive competition in queenless honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera L.) (1994)
    Springer
    Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 35 (1994), S. 99-107 
    Details
    ISSN: 1432-0762
    Keywords: Apis mellifera ; Genetics ; Drone production ; Allozymes ; Reproductive conflict
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Biology
    Notes: Abstract Previously we reported that there are subfamily differences in drone production in queenless honey bee colonies, but these biases are not always explained by subfamily differences in oviposition behavior. Here we determine whether these puzzling results are best explained by either inadequate sampling of the laying worker population or reproductive conflict among workers resulting in differential treatment of eggs and larvae. Using colonies composed of workers from electrophoretically distinct subfamilies, we collected samples of adult bees engaged in the following behavior: “true” egg laying, “false” egg laying, indeterminate egg laying, egg cannibalism, or nursing (contact with larvae). We also collected samples of drone brood at four different ages: 0 to 2.5-h-old eggs, 0 to 24-h-old eggs, 3 to 8-day-old larvae, and 9 to 14-day-old larvae and pupae. Allozyme analyses revealed significant subfamily differences in the likelihood of exhibiting egg laying, egg cannibalism, and nursing behavior, as well as significant subfamily differences in drone production. There were no subfamily differences among the different types of laying workers collected from each colony, suggesting that discrepancies between subfamily biases in egg-laying behavior and drone production are not due to inadequate sampling of the laying worker population. Subfamily biases in drone brood production within a colony changed significantly with brood age. Laying workers had significantly more developed ovaries than either egg cannibals or nurses, establishing a physiological correlate for the observed behavioral genetic differences. These results suggest there is reproductive conflict among subfamilies and individuals within queenless colonies of honey bees. The implications of these results for the evolution of reproductive conflict, in both queenright and queenless contexts, are discussed.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00171499
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Paper (German National Licenses)
    Fulltext
  • 5
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Genotypic differences in brood rearing in honey bee colonies: context-specific? (1994)
    Springer
    Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 34 (1994), S. 125-137 
    Details
    ISSN: 1432-0762
    Keywords: Social insects ; Apis mellifera ; Division of labor ; Genetics ; Nepotism
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Biology
    Notes: Summary Three experiments were performed to determine whether brood care in honey bee colonies is influenced by colony genetic structure and by social context. In experiment 1, there were significant genotypic biases in the relative likelihood of rearing queens or workers, based on observations of individually labeled workers of known age belonging to two visually distinguishable subfamilies. In experiment 2, no genotypic biases in the relative likelihood of rearing drones or workers was detected, in the same colonies that were used in experiment 1. In experiment 3, there again were significant genotypic differences in the likelihood of rearing queens or workers, based on electrophoretic analyses of workers from a set of colonies with allozyme subfamily markers. There also was an overall significant trend for colonies to show greater subfamily differences in queen rearing when the queens were sisters (half- and super-sisters) rather than unrelated, but these differences were not consistent from trial to trial for some colonies. Results of experiments 1 and 3 demonstrate genotypic differences in queen rearing, which has been reported previously based on more limited behavioral observations. Results from all three experiments suggest that genotypic differences in brood care are influenced by social context and may be more pronounced when workers have a theoretical opportunity to practice nepotism. Finally, we failed to detect persistent interindividual differences in bees from either subfamily in the tendency to rear queen brood, using two different statistical tests. This indicates that the probability of queen rearing was influenced by genotypic differences but not by the effect of prior queen-rearing experience. These results suggest that subfamilies within a colony can specialize on a particular task, such as queen rearing, without individual workers performing that task for extended periods of time.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00164183
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Paper (German National Licenses)
    Fulltext
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...