4.5 Article

Automated monitoring reveals extreme interindividual variation and plasticity in honeybee foraging activity levels

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 41-48

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.06.006

关键词

Apis mellifera; elitism; foraging; honeybee; plasticity; radio frequency identification; RFID

资金

  1. National Institutes of Science Pioneer Award
  2. Christopher Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Workers in many eusocial insect species show a phenomenon sometimes referred to as 'elitism', in which a small proportion of individual workers engaged in a task perform a disproportionately large fraction of the work achieved by the colony as a whole. This phenomenon has not been well studied for foraging behaviour in honeybees (Apis mellifera) because detailed observational studies of foraging activity have been limited by the difficulty of successfully tracking large numbers of individual workers. Here, we used radio frequency identification technology to monitor honeybee flight behaviour automatically and generate lifetime flight activity records for large numbers of individuals from multiple colonies. We observed a consistent skew in activity levels of honeybee foragers, similar to that reported in many other social insects. However, this skew was a consequence of modulation of foraging activity by environmental and social factors rather than the existence of a distinct group or subcaste of elite foragers. Individual responses to experimental manipulation of the foraging workforce confirmed that activity level was flexibly adjusted according to colony needs. These results demonstrate that elitism in insect societies can arise as the extreme of a stable spectrum of individual behavioural activity that allows the colony to respond easily to unexpected needs rather than relying on responses of a rigidly defined subgroup of workers. (C) 2014 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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