4.4 Article

The use of field-based social information in eusocial foragers: local enhancement among nestmates and heterospecifics in stingless bees

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 369-379

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2311.2003.00512.x

关键词

individual decision-making; local enhancement; social foraging; stingless bee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. Foragers of social insects can be guided to profitable food sources by social information transfer within the nest. This study showed that in addition to such an information-centre strategy, social information in the field also plays an important role in individual foraging decisions. The effect of the presence of a nestmate on individual decision-making on where to forage was investigated in six species of stingless bee that differ in their recruitment system. Some species preferred to feed close to a nestmate (local enhancement) whereas other species actively avoided landing close to a nestmate. The term local inhibition is introduced for this avoidance behaviour. 2. Local enhancement and local inhibition were species specific but were not related to the species' recruitment system. 3. Local enhancement and local inhibition were affected by the individual's experience with the food source. Newly recruited foragers of Trigona amalthea showed local enhancement whereas experienced foragers showed local inhibition. 4. These individual decision-making rules explained accurately the spatial distribution of recruited nestmates: foraging groups of T. amalthea , which shows local inhibition, were more dispersed than foraging groups of Oxytrigona mellicolor , which shows local enhancement. 5. The effect of heterospecifics on stingless bee flower choice was investigated for 18 species combinations. Landing decisions were influenced significantly by the aggressiveness and the body size of the resident bee. Larger and more aggressive heterospecifics were avoided, whereas in some cases less aggressive bees acted as an attraction cue.

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

4.4
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