spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online January 19, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 421-432 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02025
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JEB
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by De Marco, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by De Marco, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

How bees tune their dancing according to their colony's nectar influx: re-examining the role of the food-receivers' `eagerness'

Rodrigo J. De Marco

Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Pb. II, Ciudad Universitaria, C1428EHA, Buenos Aires, Argentina


Figure 1
View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Experimental layout to investigate how bees tune their dancing according to their colony's nectar influx. An observation hive was connected to a narrow corridor and to a flight enclosure. The flight enclosure was used to control the totality of the nectar sources exploited by the colony. Two different feeders were used, each delivering unscented 1.8 mol l-1 sucrose solution. The first one, individual feeder (IF), was placed at the end of the corridor and offered sucrose solution with a constant flow rate of 5 µl min-1. During each recording session, marked bees were allowed to forage individually on the IF and their behaviours were video-recorded along eight successive foraging cycles. Simultaneously, the second feeder, group feeder (GF), was placed inside the flight enclosure and offered a constant solution flow rate of either 3 or 90 µl min-1 (according to three different experimental series: the constant, the decreasing and the increasing series, see Materials and methods for details). During each session, a group of foragers collected sucrose solution at the GF while a single marked bee foraged on the IF. Quantifiable variations in the colony's sugar solution intake rate were induced by modifying the solution flow rate offered at the GF.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Frequency distribution (%) of all the food-unloading events of different durations recorded in the constant series (each trophallaxis lasting more than 4 s was considered as an experimental unit). Data from 32 bees. Results are shown for each of the two different flow rates of sugar solution offered at the GF (grey bars, 3 µl min-1; open bars, 90 µl min-1).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (66K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. (A,D,G) Dance probability before (open bars) and after (hatched bars) the foragers' food-unloading. (B,E,H) Dance strength, i.e. number of round circuits, before (open bars) and after (hatched bars) the food-unloading. (C,F,I) Maximum number of simultaneous food-receivers (grey open bars) and total number of food-receivers (grey hatched bars) involved in the foragers' food-unloading (see Materials and methods for details). Data correspond to marked bees that foraged individually on the IF. Results are shown for the two different reward conditions (Low: 3 µl min-1, High: 90 µl min-1) offered at the GF throughout the three different experimental series: A,B,C constant series (N1=15, N2=17), D,E,F decreasing series (N=7), and G,H,I increasing series (N=6). See Results for details on statistics. Values are means ± s.e.m.; *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Dance probability (A,B) and dance strength (C,D) plotted against the maximum number of simultaneous food-receivers (A,C) and the total number of food-receivers (B,D). Single records correspond to the mean values shown in Fig. 3. Data are shown for dances recorded before (filled circles) and after (open circles) the foragers' food-unloading. See Results for details on statistics.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (29K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Frequency distribution (%) of food-unloading events (A,B) and dance circuits (C,D) throughout the hive time. Data from the decreasing series. The hive time was divided into twenty periods of equal duration. Results are shown for each of the two different reward rates offered at the GF (open bars: 90 µl min-1, grey bars: 3 µl min-1). See Results for details.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Frequency distribution (%) of the duration of trophallactic interactions performed by food-receivers interacting with marked bees (see Materials and methods for details). Data from the constant series. Results are presented for each of the two different reward rates offered at the GF (grey bars: 3 µl min-1, N=422, 105 food-unloading events, 17 marked bees; open bars: 90 µl min-1, N=266, 101 food-unloading events, 15 marked bees).

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2006