Simultaneous Use of Two Observation Hives to Study the Behavior of
Honeybee Colonies in
Apis mellifera Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
Uso simultâneo de duas colméias de observação para estudar o
comportamento das colônias de abelhas em Apis mellifera
Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
DOI:10.34117/bjdv6n8-558
Recebimento dos originais: 25/07/2020 Aceitação para publicação: 25/08/2020
Valeska Marques Arruda Laboratório de Zoologia e Entomologia UNEMAT – Campus Universitário de Nova Mutum
Endereço: Av. das Arapongas, 1384N – Caixa Postal 267 – CEP: 78.450-000 e-mail: arrudavm@unemat.br
José Chaud-Netto Institute of Biosciences
Endereço: São Paulo State University-UNESP Rio Claro, São Paulo State, Brazil
Valter Vieira Alves-Júnior Dourados University-UFGD,
ABSTRACT
Workers of Apis mellifera L. perform activities in a temporal sequence. In general, this division of labor includes some duties that vary with age, the needs of the colony and environmental conditions. This scientific note describes a technique that facilitates the observation of activities relating to the division of labor among worker bees of different ages, as well as the control of the longevity of these bees when they receive a diet containing a specific substance.
Keywords: bee, division of labor, social insects. RESUMO
Trabalhadores da Apis mellifera L. executam atividades em uma seqüência temporal. Em geral, esta divisão de trabalho inclui algumas tarefas que variam com a idade, as necessidades da colônia e as condições ambientais. Esta nota científica descreve uma técnica que facilita a observação das atividades relacionadas à divisão do trabalho entre abelhas operárias de diferentes idades, assim como o controle da longevidade dessas abelhas quando elas recebem uma dieta contendo uma substância específica.
1 INTRODUCTION
In a hive of Apis mellifera Linnaeus the worker bees have highly stereotyped behavior determined by a strong genetic component, which gives them a great adaptation to the environment (Moritz & Southwick 1992). These individuals perform all activities relating to the maintenance and defense of the colony (Wilson 1971, Michener 1974, Free 1980).
The tasks are distributed in a temporal sequence and depend on colony condition (Lindauer 1952, Couto 2002, Mesquita et al. 2020), bee age (Seeley 1982, Winston 1987), glandular development (Ribbands 1953, Fluri et al 1982), and genetic structure (Calderone et al 1989, Kolmes et al 1989, Rothenbuhler & Page 1989). According to Lindauer (1961), for social communication regarding this division of labor in a bee colony three conditions are necessary: 1- a large number of individuals to perform the activities of the colony at any time; 2. a “socially directed drive” resultant from ovarian degeneration in workers; 3. a large collection of instinctive behavior must be available. Wilson (1985) stated that the activities performed by hive workers can be grouped in three general categories associated with age distribution: Cell-cleaning tasks, brood-nest tasks, and food-handling tasks. These general categories include three dozen or more behavioral duties, as removal of debris (including dead bees), dehydration of nectar, occlusion of cells containing honey, colony defense, and other social behaviors (Seeley 1982, Robinson & Page 1991).
According to Free (1980), in the first two or three weeks of age the bees work inside the nest and in the remaining days of their lives they act as guards of the hive and, finally, as foragers of nectar, pollen, water and propolis. However, there is a wide variation in the age at which bees make the various intranidal duties and the activities of foraging (Wilson 1971, Free 1980, Hellmich et al 1985).
Many authors performed studies on these activities and often divergent results were obtained (Ribbands 1952, Lindauer 1953, Seeley 1982, Winston 1987, Seeley & Kolmes 1991). Hives of observation containing an experimental group of bees and a control group are generally used in behavioral studies. The purpose of this scientific note is to describe a technique that facilitates the observation of activities relating to the division of labor between worker honeybees (A. mellifera) of different ages, as well as the control of the longevity of these bees when they receive a diet containing a specific substance.
For the development of this technique two observation beehives are required. One of them will receive the worker bees of the experimental group and the other the workers of the control group. Each beehive must contain a newly mated queen, a mean population with approximately 3500 bees, and two standard Langstroth honeybee combs covered with bees of varying ages. One
of them must have much honey and pollen and the second (a brood comb) must possess bees in all stages of development.
The bees of both observation beehives are obtained from a mother colony, containing a queen fertilized in free flight or an instrumentally inseminated queen who received sperms from many drones. So, all the workers of each colony are at least half-sisters (workers who share the same mother, but have different fathers). The workers who share the same father and mother will be true sisters or ‘super-sisters’ because of their higher relatedness (0.75). To prevent the emergence of bees produced by the queen of each observation hive, the brood combs containing the descendants of each queen are replaced each 17 days by brood combs coming from the mother colony.
The use of bees with the same origin in both observation beehives minimizes the differential effects of the two populations on the workers that will be marked and observed. The workers of the experimental and control groups are obtained as follow: a sealed brood comb containing worker bees about to emerge is removed from the mother colony and introduced in an incubator maintained at 34oC and 75% RH.
The workers that emerge in the next 24 hours are marked individually with small colored numbered plastic discs glued to the thorax, according to the technique described by Pereira & Chaud-Netto (2008). Fifty percent of the marked bees are introduced in an observation beehive and the remaining ones are placed in the other. For safety, it is desirable that the bees in the experimental group are marked with numbered discs of a certain color and the bees in the control group with another color, so that if one of them enters into a different beehive by mistake it will be promptly identified. At least 100 marked workers should be introduced in each beehive in the first day (the plastic discs of each color are numbered from 0 to 99).
From the second day on, and every two days, fifty or more newly born worker bees should be marked with a different color (for instance, yellow, red, grey, orange, rose, blue, green, etc), and then introduced in each observation beehive using a metallic screen with 1mm2 mesh and 2 x 10 x 20 cm of dimensions, to prevent them from being attacked by the bees of the colony (Pereira & Chaud-Netto 2008). Each group of marked worker bees shall be released 24 hours after introduction. This procedure should be maintained while the observations are being carried out, so that each colony has bees of all ages while the experiment is in progress.
One of the populations (the control group) should be fed weekly with 50g of candy, prepared with 85% honey + 15% confectioner sugar (glaçúcar), while the other (the experimental group) will receive candy mixed with the substance which will be tested as to the behavior of the bees (50g in total). The use of two observation beehives in experiments of this kind is necessary because if the
bees of both groups are introduced in the same beehive, those receiving the diet containing the substance to be tested can transfer this substance to the bees of the control group, by trophallaxis, invalidating the experience.
Each beehive must be installed in a different room and the entrance of each one of them must be identified with a specific color to avoid the drift of the marked worker bees when they initiate the first flights. A wooden box with 10x10x5 cm of dimensions and glass cover should be installed between the colony and the entrance of each beehive to facilitate the observation and daily recording of the type of floral resource collected by the forager bees (Fig 1 and 2 ).
The observations and recording of the main activities performed by the worker bees of each group (experimental and control) should be made day after day, between 6 am and 18 pm, from the second day after emergence of the bees. The tasks performed by the bees are observed in periods of one hour, being held an alternation between beehives in relation to the beginning of the observations and also throughout the day.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To the Coordination of Improvement for Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the award of a PhD scholarship for the first author and Productivity in Research for the senior author.
REFERENCES
Calderone NW, Robinson GE, Page RE (1989) Genetic structure and division of labour in honey bee societies. Experientia 45: 765–767.
Couto RHN (2002) Apicultura: manejo e produtos. Jaboticabal, FUNEP, 191p.
Fluri P, Luscher M, Wille H, Gerig L (1982) Changes in weight of the pharyngeal gland and haemolymph titres of juvenile hormone, protein and vitellogenin in worker honey bees. Jour. Insect Physiol. 28 (1): 61-68.
Free JB (1980) A organização social das abelhas (Apis). São Paulo, EPU – EDUSP, 79p. [Coleção Temas de Biologia, v.13].
Hellmich RL, Kulincevic JM, Rothenbuhler WC (1985) Selection for high and low pollen- hoarding honeybees. Jour. Hered. 76: 155-158.
Kolmes SA, Winston ML, Fergusson LA (1989) The division of labour among worker honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae): the effects of multiple patrilines. Jour. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 62: 80-95. Lindauer M (1952) Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Arbeitsteilung im Bienenstaat. Zeit. Vergl. Physiol. 36: 299–345.
Lindauer M (1953) Division of labour in the honey bee colony. Bee World 34 (4): 63-73, 85-90. Lindauer M (1961) Communication among social bees. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 143 p.
Mesquita AR de, Salmento LL de S, Sales-Junior OR de, Santos JHC dos, Araújo FMA de (2020) BeeFresh: IoT Temperature Monitoring Tool for Honey Bee Hives. Braz. J. of Develop. 6 (7): 52724-52740.
Michener CD (1974) The social behaviour of the bees: A comparative study. Cambridge Harvard University Press, 404 p.
Moritz RFA, Southwick EE (1992) Bees as superorganisms – An evolutionary Reality. New York, Springer – Verlag, 395p.
Pereira AM, Chaud-Netto J (2008) Hymenoptera marking technique. Jour. Venom. Anim.Toxins includ. Tropic. Dis. 14 (1): 166-169.
Ribbands CR (1952) Division of labour in the honey bee community. Proc. Royal Soc. 140: 32-43. Ribbands CR (1953) The behavior and social life of honeybees. London, Bee Research Association, 352 p.
Robinson GE, Page RE (1991) The Genetics of division of labour in Honey Bee Colonies, p. 118- 163. In Evans PD (eds) Advances in Insect Physiology. Cambridge, 224p.
Robinson GE (1991) Hormonal and genetic control of division of labor in the honey bee colony, p. 14-27. In Goodman LJ, Fisher RC (eds) The behaviour and physiology of bees. Oxon, CAB International, 362p.
Rothenbuhler WC, Page RE (1989) Genetic variability for temporal polyethism in colonies consisting of similarly-aged worker honey bees. Apidologie 20 (5): 433-437.
Seeley TD (1982) Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 11: 287-293.
Seeley TD, Kolmes AS (1991) Age poleythism for hive duties in honey-bees - illusion or reality? Ethology 87 (3–4): 284 - 297.
Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 548p. Wilson EO (1985) The sociogenesis of insect colonies. Science 228: 1489-1495.
Fig 1 Scheme of an observation beehive (a) and the wooden box (b) used to record the activity of collecting food resources by workers of Apis mellifera Linnaeus.
