4.5 Article

An oligarchy of nest-site scouts triggers a honeybee swarm's departure from the hive

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 6, 页码 979-987

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-010-0913-4

关键词

Apis mellifera; Buzz run; Group decision making; Honeybee; Oligarchy; Swarming; Worker piping

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [0707428]
  2. State University of New York Graduate Underrepresented Minority Fellowship Program
  3. American Philosophical Society
  4. Hunter R Rawlings III Cornell Presidential Research
  5. Division Of Graduate Education
  6. Direct For Education and Human Resources [0707428] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Animals that travel in groups must synchronize the timing of their departures to assure cohesion of the group. While most activities in large colonies of social insects have decentralized control, certain activities (e.g., colony migration) can have centralized control, with only a special subset of well-informed individuals making a decision that affects the entire colony. We recently discovered that a small minority of individuals in a honeybee colony-an oligarchy-decides when to trigger the departure of a swarm from its hive. The departure process begins with some bees producing the worker-piping signal (the primer for departure) and is followed by these bees producing the buzz-run signal (the releaser for departure). In this study, we determined the identity of these signalers. We found that a swarm's nest-site scouts search for potential nest cavities prior to the departure of the swarm from its hive. Furthermore, we found that the predeparture nest-site scouts are the sole producers of the worker-piping signal and that they are the first producers of the buzz-run signal. The control of the departure of a honeybee swarm from its hive shows how a small minority of well-informed individuals in a large social insect colony can make important decisions about when a colony should take action.

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