Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (37)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Downs, S. G.
Right arrow Articles by Ratnieks, F. L. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Downs, S. G.
Right arrow Articles by Ratnieks, F. L. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 11 No. 3: 326-333
© 2000 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Adaptive shifts in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) guarding behavior support predictions of the acceptance threshold model

Stephen G. Downs and Francis L. W. Ratnieks

Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

Address correspondence to S. G. Downs, Laboratory of Apiculture and Social Insects, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. E-mail: bop97sgd{at}sheffield.ac.uk .

The acceptance threshold model predicts that in a fluctuating environment a recognition system should be adaptive rather than fixed. In particular, discriminating individuals, such as guards at a nest entrance, should be less permissive to conspecifics when both the frequency of non-nest-mate contact and the cost of accepting non-nest mates is high. We tested these predictions by studying honey bee guarding during a period in which nectar conditions changed from dearth to abundance. Initially, during nectar dearth, individual guards accepted 80% of introduced nest mates and 25% of non-nest mates. As nectar conditions improved, both the intensity of robbing and guarding and the cost of non-nest-mate acceptance declined. In response, individual guards became more permissive to nest mates and non-nest mates until eventually an "accept-all" threshold occurred—all nest mates and non-nest mates were accepted. These data are consistent with a shifting acceptance threshold and provide the first field data to support the model. A simple linear relationship occurred between the number of guards and the number of fights, 9:1, observed at the hive entrance, suggesting that guarding may be regulated by intruder intensity or otherwise regulated in an adaptive manner.

Key words: acceptance thresholds, conspecific recognition, honey bees, odor convergence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
M. Segoli, T. Keasar, A. R. Harari, and A. Bouskila
Limited kin discrimination abilities mediate tolerance toward relatives in polyembryonic parasitoid wasps
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2009; 20(6): 1262 - 1267.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Biol LettHome page
M. J Couvillon, J. P Caple, S. L Endsor, M. Karcher, T. E Russell, D. E Storey, and F. L.W Ratnieks
Nest-mate recognition template of guard honeybees (Apis mellifera) is modified by wax comb transfer
Biol Lett, June 22, 2007; 3(3): 228 - 230.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
R. Cooney
Colony defense in Damaraland mole-rats, Cryptomys damarensis
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2002; 13(2): 160 - 162.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
S. G. Downs, F. L. W. Ratnieks, N. S. Badcock, and A. Mynott
Honeybee guards do not use food-derived odors to recognize non-nest mates: a test of the Odor Convergence hypothesis
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2001; 12(1): 47 - 50.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.