4.6 Review

Why, when and where did honey bee dance communication evolve?

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2015.00125

关键词

honey bee; waggle dance evolution; dance language; evolution of communication; honey bee foraging; honey bee evolution; social insect communication

类别

资金

  1. Swiss NSF [PZOOP3_142628/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Honey bees (Apis sp.) are the only known bee genus that uses nest-based communication to provide nest-mates with information about the location of resources, the so-called dance language. Successful foragers perform waggle dances for high quality food sources and, when swarming, suitable nest-sites. However, since many species of social insects do not communicate the location of resources to their nest-mates, the question of why the dance language evolved in honey bees is of ongoing interest. We review recent theoretical and empirical research into the ecological circumstances that make dance communication beneficial in present day environments. This research suggests that the dance language is most beneficial when food sources differ greatly in quality and are hard to find. The dances of extant honey bee species differ in important ways, and phylogenetic studies suggest an increase in dance complexity over time: species with the least complex dance were the first to appear and species with the most complex dance are the most derived. We review the fossil record of honey bees and speculate about the time and context (foraging vs. swarming) in which spatially referential dance communication might have evolved. We conclude that there are few certainties about when the dance language first appeared; dance communication could be older than 40 million years and, thus, predate the genus Apis, or it could be as recent as 20 million years when extant honey bee species diverged during the early Miocene. The most parsimonious scenario assumes it evolved in a sub-tropical to temperate climate with patchy vegetation, somewhere in Eurasia.

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

4.6
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