Abstract
The aim of the research was to determine the character of interactions between different groups of bees and the influence on defense and hygiene behavior of a bee colony as a whole. Two groups of bees were compared: aggressive and docile. Observations were conducted on synthetic experimental nuclei colonies. They were created according to a model which uses five nuclei colonies: 2 homogenous ones, with one consisting of 100% aggressive bees and the second one consisting of 100% docile bees, and three mixed ones in which aggressive and docile bees were combined in different proportions (20, 50, 80%). Stinging tests and hygienic testes (removing the dead pupae and lined paper) were carried out on experimental nuclei colonies. The tests indicated that aggressive bees had a bigger influence on defense behavior as they showed behavioral dominance depending on the breed of mixed bees. On the other hand, bee mixing had no conclusive influence on hygienic behavior depending on the breed of mixed bees. In homogenous nuclei colonies the bees which removed the lined paper faster were also faster in removing dead pupae, and those which removed the lined paper more slowly, were slower in removing dead pupae. In mixed nuclei colonies the pace of removing the lined paper was not connected with the proportion of bees in a nuclei colony but it depended on their interaction.
References
B r o d s c h n e i d e r R., A r n o l d G., H r a s s i n g g N., C r a i l s he i m K.: Alien honeybees do their job well: Scouting and recruiting in drifted bees. Proc. of the first European Conf. of Apidology, Udine, Italy, 57, 2004.
B r u d e r A.: Meine Betriebsweise. Ehrenwirt Verlag, München 1983.
C a l d e r o n e N. W., P a g e R. E.: Effects of interactions among genetically diverse nestmates on task soecialisation by foraging honey bees (Apis mellifera). Behav. Ecol. Socobiol., 30, 219–226, 1992.
G u z m a n - N o v a E., P a g e R. E.: Genetic dominance and worker interactions affect honeybee colony defense. Behav. Ecol., 5, 91–97, 1994.
K e f u s s J., T a b e r S., V a n p o u c k e J., R e y F.: A practical method to test for disease resistance in honey bees. Am. Bee J., 136 (1), 31–32, 1996.
M o r i t z R. F. A., Fuchs S.: Organization of honeybee colonies: characteristic and consequences of a superorganism concept. Apidologie, 29, 7–21, 1998.
M o r i t z R. F. A.: A reevaluation of the two-locus model for hygienic behavior in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). J. Hered., 79, 257–262, 1998.
N e u m a n n P., M o r i t z R. F. A.: Testing genetic variance hypotheses for the evolution of polyandry in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Insect. Soc., 47, 271–279, 2000.
P a x t o n R. J., S a k a m o t o C. H., R u g i g a F. C.: Modification of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) stinging behaviour by within-colony environment and age. J. Apic. Res., 33(2), 75–82, 1994.
R o t h e n b u h l e r W. C.: Behavior genetics of nest cleaning in honey bee IV. Response of F1 and backcross generation to disease-killed brood. Am. Zool., 4, 111–123, 1964.
S t o r t A. C.: Genetic study of aggressiveness of two subspecies of Apis mellifera in Brazil. 1. Some tests to measure aggressiveness. J., Apic. Res. 13(1), 33–38, 1974.
T a b e r S.: Drifting. Gleanings in bee culture. Am. Bee J., 6, 398–399, 1988.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
