QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online December 2, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 4641-4649 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01956

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Toth, A. L. Articles by Robinson, G. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Toth, A. L. Articles by Robinson, G. E.

Nutritional status influences socially regulated foraging ontogeny in honey bees

Amy L. Toth^1,*, Sara Kantarovich², Adam F. Meisel³ and Gene E. Robinson^1,2,4

¹ Program in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA
² Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA
³ Hughes Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA
⁴ Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Effect of dietary manipulation (Experiment 1) on abdominal lipid amounts in 5-day-old bees collected prior to colony onset of foraging. Bees in single-cohort-colonies were fed either a typical diet (honey and pollen; black bars), a pollen-deprived diet (honey only; grey bars), or a diet containing TOFA and honey (no pollen; white bars). (A) Trial by trial results. Values are means ± S.E.M.; numbers within bars represent the number of bees analyzed per group. *P<0.05, ANOVA within trials. (B) Pooled results for three trials (overall ANOVA, P<0.0001); groups that differed significantly are designated with different letters (a,b,c).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Effect of dietary manipulation (Experiment 1) on the development of foraging behavior. (A) Trial by trial results. Numbers above bars represent the number of bees observed foraging per group. *P<0.05, 2 tests within trials. (B) Pooled results for three trials. Values are means ± S.E.M.; overall ANOVA, P<0.0001; groups that differed significantly are designated with different letters (a,b). Dietary manipulations as in Fig. 1.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Effect of nutrition and social inhibition (Experiment 2) on the development of foraging behavior. Bees were placed in single-cohort colonies under a combination of starved/fed and social inhibition/no inhibition treatments. (A) Trial by trial results; numbers above bars represent number of bees observed foraging per group. (B) Pooled results; groups that differed significantly are designated with different letters (a,b). Values are means ± S.E.M.; overall ANOVA: starvation, P<0.001; social inhibition, P<0.001; starvationxsocial inhibition (SI), not significant. SI+/–, with/without social inhibition treatment (forager transplant).

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Effect of social isolation (Experiment 3) on abdominal lipid amounts of 7-day-old bees. Isolated bees were placed in cages within field colonies allowing no social contact; colony-reared bees were allowed to move freely in the same field colony; treatment lasted 7 days. Values are means ± S.E.M. for isolated and colony-reared control bees. The results for two trials are shown. Numbers within bars represent the number of bees analyzed per group. *P<0.05, two-tailed, unpaired t-tests, assuming equal variance.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Effect of social isolation (Experiment 3) on development of foraging behavior (isolated and colony-reared controls). Results for two trials are shown. Numbers above bars represent the number of bees observed foraging per group. *P<0.05, 2 tests.