Experiments are designed to assess whether free-flying honey bees have an aversion to an ethanol solution when given a choice between targets containing an ethanol solution in sucrose or sucrose only. Animals given a choice between a 1% ethanol solution and sucrose only show no aversion to the ethanol solution either in acquisition or extinction. Honey bees given a choice between a 5% ethanol solution and sucrose only show no differences in the initial choice of targets but some ees do switch over to the sucrose-only target. Performance during extinction indicates that bees landed on the previously reinforced sucrose-only target more than the target previously containing the 5% ethanol solution. An experiment in which bees were given a single 5%, ethanol target showed that of 20 bees, 11 returned for the entire 12 trials of the experiment. All bees returned at least 6 times to the 5% ethanol target. Additional experiments were run on harnessed foragers in a palatability study of alcoholic beverages consumed by humans. The results of the palatability experiment indicate that in general, bees prefer more sweet drinks with less alcohol.

No abstract

No abstract

A Roman stonemason works to repair the vulnerable corner of a 1000-yearold structure. He stands sturdy in his fashionably buckled black boots, blue jeans with plaster-clouded knees, and traditional blue work coat with lapels. Kneepads wait to support his delicate work close to the ground, hammering additional bits of marble, variously sized, to fit all filling defects. He restores a historic work of masonry 30 generations after its construction and reconstruction, done just like this in just this way, in a process first learned during the transition from wood to stone. Some hours into mixing mud, his dextrous hands with precision and artistry carefully prep the faces for a final fresh surface coat, smooth to the touch. When he is done, the pads, hammer, slab, and bits all fit into his metal pail, then into his bicycle basket for a ride home through Roman traffic. He looks back to view with pleasure and a sure sense of contribution his master work of art.

An experiment was conducted to determine effects of the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren, on abundance of other arthropods in a peanut agroecosystem. Effects of S. invicta on arthropod abundance and peanut quality are poorly understood. Previous work suggests that S. invicta prey on approximately 7 times more pests than beneficial arthropods in peanuts (Vogt et al. 2001, Environ. Entomol. 30: 123-128). Our study was undertaken to examine the effects of low and high S. invicta population densities on predator and herbivore populations in peanut fields.The study site was a large (>80 ha) peanut field located in Bryan Co., OK. Prior to this experiment, S. invicta mound densities along the field edge were estimated to be >1 per 2.5 linear m of irrigation ditch, with scattered colonies occurring within the field. Ten plots (30.5 m x 30.5 m) were established along the edge of the field near the irrigation ditch. Prior to planting, S. invicta populations were reduced in every other plot using Amdro® (0.73% hydramethylnon) (American Cyanamid Co., Wayne, NJ) outside the plots and Extinguish® (0.5% methoprene) (Wellmark International, Schaumburg, IL) within the plots, 3 resulting in a randomized complete block design (blocked by location) replicated 5 times. Arthropods were sampled in the plots using pitfall traps (8 plot -1 , 24 h sample) and sweep samples (25 swings plot -1 ) approximately every 2 wks. Ants were specifically sampled at one point in the study by placing 8 hotdog-baited vials in each plot for 30 min, then quickly sealing and collecting them. Arthropod abundance data were log 10 -transformed for analysis and subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (Proc MIXED) (Littell et al. 1996, SAS System for Mixed Models, SAS Institute, Cary, NC) to test for fixed effects of time (date) and treatment, and random effects of block, block * treatment, and block * time (treatment).Bait treatments dramatically reduced S. invicta population density in treated plots compared to untreated plots, as measured using pitfall trap data (Proc MIXED, F = 118.5; df = 1, 4; P = 0.0004) (Fig. 1A).