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
Nutritional status influences socially regulated foraging ontogeny in honey bees
Amy L. Toth1,*,
Sara Kantarovich2,
Adam F. Meisel3 and
Gene E. Robinson1,2,4
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.
|
|
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005
