Summary
Individual worker dominance correlated with trophallactic behavior, which affects several social behaviors related to colony fitness, shows a high genetic variance in worker bees. In a bioassay we tested trophallactic behavior of workers and selected dominant (receiving) and subordinate worker bees (offering) of Apis mellifera capensis to establish genetic lines of both kinds. Queenright test colonies were experimentally composed of 100% subordinate workers, 100% dominant workers, 50% dominant plus 50% subordinate workers, and 100% hybrid workers from the two genetic lines. The chosen test parameters were brood-rearing, comb building and hoarding behavior. In all cases, the colonies of pure subordinate bees showed the best colony performance, whereas the colonies composed of only dominant bees were nearly unproductive. The mixed colonies (50% dominant + 50% subordinate) ranked in the middle and did not differ significantly from the hybrid colonies. The results indicate that colony performance under queenright conditions depends on the proportion of subordinate workers. This result supports a selection model based on the combination of individual selection and on group selection at the colony level, which explains the high genetic variance of individual worker reproduction.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Butler CG (1954) The method and importance of the recognition by a colony of honeybees (A. mellifera) of the presence of its queen. Trans R Ent Soc London 105:2–29
Butler CG, Fairey EM (1963) The role of the queen in preventing oogenesis in worker honeybees. J Apic Res 2:14–18
Cole BJ (1986) The social behavior of Leptothorax allardycei (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): time bugets and the evolution of worker reproduction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:165–173
Crewe RM (1982) Compositional variability: the key to the social signals produced by honeybee mandibular glands. In: Hermann (ed) The biology of social insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 318–322
Crewe RM, Velthuis HHW (1980) False queen: a consequence of mandibular gland signals in worker honeybees. Naturwissenschaften 67:467–469
Frumhoff PC, Baker J (1988) A genetic component to division of labour within honey bee colonies. Nature 333:358–361
Hemmling C, Koeniger N, Ruttner F (1979) Quantitative Bestimmung der 9-Oxodecensäure im Lebenszyklus der Kapbiene (Apis mellifera capensis Escholtz) Apidologie 10:227–240
Hillesheim E (1986) Trophallaxis von Arbeiterinnen in Kleingruppen und im Vol, (Apis mellifera L.) Apidologie 17:343–346
Korst PJAM, Velthuis HHW (1982) The nature of trophallaxis. Insectes Soc 29:209–221
Lensky Y, Demter M (1985) Mating flights of the queen honeybee (Apis mellifera) in a subtropical climate. Comp Biochem Physiol A 81:229–241
Lindauer M (1952) Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Arbeitsteilung im Bienenstaat. Z Vergl Physiol 34:299–345
Moritz RFA (1989) Natural selection for reproductive dominance in honey bees. A two allele population model for Apis mellifera capensis (in press)
Moritz RFA, Hillesheim E (1985) Inheritance of dominance in honeybees (Apis mellifera capensis Escholtz) Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:87–89
Robinson GE, Page RE (1988) Genetic determination of guarding and undertaking in honey bee colonies. Nature 333:356–358
Rösch GA (1925) Untersuchungen über die Arbeitsteilung im Bienenstaat. I. Die Tätigkeiten im normalen Bienenstaate und ihre Beziehungen zum Alter der Arbeitsbienen. Z Vergl Physiol 2:571–631
Rösch GA (1927) Über die Bautätigkeit im Bienenvolk und das Alter der Baubienen. Z Vergl Physiol 6:264–298
Rösch GA (1930) Untersuchungen über die Arbeitsteilung im Bienenstaat. II. Die Tätigkeiten der Arbeitsbienen unter experimentell veränderten Bedingungen. Z Vergl Physiol 12:1–17
Sakagami SF (1953) Arbeitsteilung der Arbeiterinnen in einem Zwergvolk, bestehend aus gleichaltrigen Volksgenossen. Beiträge zur Biologie des Bienenvolkes, Apis mellifera L. II. J Fac Sci Hokkaido Univ Ser VI Zool 11:343–415
Schmid-Hempel P (1989) Reproductive competition as a selective factor for the evolution of work load in social insects. Am Nat (in press)
Schmid-Hempel P, Wolf T (1988) Foraging effort and life span of workers in a social insect. J Anim Ecol 57:509–521
Seeley TD (1982) Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:289–293
Tiesler FK (1972) Die Inselbelegstellen aus dem Norden der BRD. In: Paarungskontrolle und Selektion bei der Honigbiene. Ruttner and Harnaj Apimondia publishing house, Bucharest Rumania, pp 52–56
Verma S, Ruttner F (1983) Cytological analysis of the thelytokous parthenogenesis in the cape honeybee (Apis mellifera capensis Escholtz). Apidologie 14:41–57
Wilson DS (1975) A theory of group selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 72:143–146
Winston ML, Punnett EN (1982) Factors determining temporal division of labour in honeybees. Can J Zool 60:2947–2952
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hillesheim, E., Koeniger, N. & Moritz, R.F.A. Colony performance in honeybees (Apis mellifera capensis Esch.) depends on the proportion of subordinate and dominant workers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24, 291–296 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290905
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290905