4.5 Article

The Electronic Bee Spy: Eavesdropping on Honeybee Communication via Electrostatic Field Recordings

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.647224

关键词

honey bee (Apis mellifera L; ); social; electrostatic field; behavior; datalogger

资金

  1. Open Access Publication Initiative of Freie Universitat Berlin
  2. Olin gGmbH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Honeybees serve as indicators of ecosystem health through social signals and the emission of characteristic electrostatic fields. By analyzing these signals along with physical measurements, the overall condition of the colony can be quantified, providing valuable insights into the health of the entire ecosystem.
As a canary in a coalmine warns of dwindling breathable air, the honeybee can indicate the health of an ecosystem. Honeybees are the most important pollinators of fruit-bearing flowers, and share similar ecological niches with many other pollinators; therefore, the health of a honeybee colony can reflect the conditions of a whole ecosystem. The health of a colony may be mirrored in social signals that bees exchange during their sophisticated body movements such as the waggle dance. To observe these changes, we developed an automatic system that records and quantifies social signals under normal beekeeping conditions. Here, we describe the system and report representative cases of normal social behavior in honeybees. Our approach utilizes the fact that honeybee bodies are electrically charged by friction during flight and inside the colony, and thus they emanate characteristic electrostatic fields when they move their bodies. These signals, together with physical measurements inside and outside the colony (temperature, humidity, weight of the hive, and activity at the hive entrance) will allow quantification of normal and detrimental conditions of the whole colony. The information provided instructs how to setup the recording device, how to install it in a normal bee colony, and how to interpret its data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据