An information-theory analysis of task specialization among worker honey bees performing hive duties

Kolmes, Steven A.

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(85)80131-7

Cited by 28 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is empirical evidence in favor of the existence of specialization in Hymenoptera (Rissing, 1981;Calderone and Page, 1988;O'Donnell and Jeanne, 1990). Kolmes and Sommeijer (1992), working with the stingless bee M. favosa, found that the construction of brood cells is a task performed by an elite group of workers. Inoue et al (1996) presented evidence on individual variation between workers for the bee Trigona (Tetragonula) minangkabau.…”

Section: Diverse Approaches To the Study Of Division Of Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…in ants (Gordon, 1999), wasps (O'Donnell and Jeanne, 1990) and in Apis bees (Visscher and Camazine, 1999). In stingless bees, intranidal individual behavior has been studied in Melipona favosa (Sommeijer et al, 1982;Kolmes and Sommeijer, 1992), M. bicolor (Bego, 1983), Trigona (Tetragonula) minangkabau (Inoue et al, 1996), and M. subnitida (Koedam et al, 1999). As for extranidal tasks, some works that addressed individual differentiation related to food and resin collection has been described in M. beecheii (Biesmeijer and Tóth, 1998), and concerning task partitioning in nectar collection, there is information compiled for five species of stingless bees (Hart and Ratnieks, 2002).…”

Section: Diverse Approaches To the Study Of Division Of Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Division of labor during brood production in stingless bees with special reference to individual participation

Cepeda

2006

Apidologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The focus of this paper is the process for brood production known as the Provisioning and Oviposition Process (POP), and particularly the individual behavior observed in the facultatively polygynous stingless bee Melipona bicolor. Following individually marked bees revealed that ovarian development is correlated with individual behavior differences. While most of the eggs laid by workers are consumed by the queen (trophic eggs), workers contribute significantly in male production with reproductive eggs, illustrating the reproductive conflict at the individual level. From an evolutionary outlook, "benefactor" behaviors may evolve if workers conserve the "hope" of reproduction. This indicates that an important function of trophic eggs is to keep the ovaries active. It is also possible that ovary development represents an internal factor promoting division of labor: reproductive workers are specialized or elite bees with low response thresholds and high activity levels that restrain the participation of other workers.stingless bees / division of labor / POP / Melipona bicolor / reproductive competition / Apidae DIVISION OF LABOR IN STINGLESS BEESIt has long been acknowledged that division of labor among hymenopteran workers presents age-correlated patterns of task performance (temporal polyethism) that spatially follow a centrifugal sequence (Wilson, 1985). In stingless bees, very young bees produce wax and work in the brood nest where they were born. They move further away from it as they age until they leave the nest to become foragers. Although the age ranges during which particular tasks are executed vary across species, bees generally pass through four stages: callow, nurse bee, housekeeper and forager. The tasks associated with these stages are: (1) incubation and repairs of the brood chamber; (2) construction and provisioning of cells, cleaning of the nest, and feeding young adults and the queen; (3) further cleaning of the nest, reconstruction of the involucrum, reception and ripening of nectar, Corresponding author: ocepeda@yahoo.com and guard duty at the entrance of the nest; (4) foraging for pollen, nectar, propolis and other materials (Wille, 1983). Meliponine workers exhibit considerable flexibility in task allocation: tasks are not rigidly established but depend on the conditions of the colony. For example it is possible to force a colony consisting only of old workers to rear brood by partially re-activating the hypopharyngeal glands (Sakagami, 1982). DIVERSE APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF DIVISION OF LABORClassic works representing purely ethological descriptions on division of labor in meliponines date back to 1955. Since then, a multitude of studies have addressed general aspects of division of labor, the provisioning and oviposition process (POP), conflict between colony members, evolution of behavior, taxonomical comparisons, and systematics versus behavior (Online supplementary list . However, few focused on specialization and individual behavior.Although in many of the studies bees were ...

show abstract

Section: Diverse Approaches To the Study Of Division Of Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Diverse Approaches To the Study Of Division Of Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

Division of labor during brood production in stingless bees with special reference to individual participation

Cepeda

2006

Apidologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in some ants social carrying (Abraham and Pasteels 1980) and foraging behavior (Lenoir and Ataya 1982;Schmid-Hempel 1984) are characterized by greater variability among than within individual workers of similar age. Foraging bees (Apidae) are well-known for their propensity to specialize on a specific nutritional material (pollen or nectar) and on particular flower species (reviewed by Eickwort and Ginsberg 1980;Kolmes 1985 a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forager specialization and the control of nest repair in Polybia occidentalis Olivier (Hymenoptera : Vespidae)

O’Donnell

Jeanne

1990

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured patterns of individual forager specialization and colony-wide rates of material input during periods of response to experimental nest damage and during control periods in three colonies of the tropcial social wasp Polybia occidentalis.(1) Most foragers specialized on gathering a single material. While active, foragers rarely switched materials, and most switching that did occur was between functionally related materials -prey and nectar (food materials) or wood pulp and water (nest materials).(2) Individuals differed greatly in activity level, here expressed as rate of foraging. Workers that foraged at high rates specialized on a single material in almost all cases. Specialized, highly active foragers comprised a minority (about 33%) of the working foragers in each colony, yet provided most of the material input.(3) Individual wasps that responded to experimental nest damage by foraging for nest materials did not gather food on days preceding or following manipulation.(4) On the colony level, nectar and prey foraging rates were not affected by foraging effort allocated to nest repair within days, or when comparing control days with days when damage was imposed. The emergency foraging response to nest damage in P. occidentalis did not depend on effort recruited away from food foraging.

show abstract

“…Concavity means that if we take two separate populations and aggregate them, the division of labor for the aggregated metapopulation should be at least as great as the average division of labor of the two individual populations. Kolmes (1985) used marginal entropy to quantify how specialized individuals are on tasks. Kolmes computed marginal entropy for each individual and then computed the arithmetic mean for all individuals in a population.…”

Section: Indices Based On Shannons Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, one could compute division of labor for each individual and then compute the geometric mean across all individuals (e.g. Kolmes, 1985). The same can be done for all tasks (e.g., Seeley, 1982;Beshers and Traniello, 1992).…”

Section: Comparing Indicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying division of labor: borrowing tools from sociology, sociobiology, information theory, landscape ecology, and biogeography

Gorelick

Bertram

2007

Insect. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we quantify division of labor? We review several fields (sociology, landscape ecology, statistics, information theory, and biogeography) that have been cognizant of these questions and been somewhat successful at answering them. We review fourteen indices for quantifying division of labor, sensu lato, which can be categorized into four families: Shannons index/entropy, Simpsons index, geometric mean, and standard/absolute deviation (including coefficients of variation). We argue that those indices using matrix inputs will simultaneously quantify the interplay between all individuals and all tasks and will thus best capture the essence of division of labor.

show abstract

An information-theory analysis of task specialization among worker honey bees performing hive duties

Cited by 28 publications

References 22 publications

Division of labor during brood production in stingless bees with special reference to individual participation

Division of labor during brood production in stingless bees with special reference to individual participation

Forager specialization and the control of nest repair in Polybia occidentalis Olivier (Hymenoptera : Vespidae)

Quantifying division of labor: borrowing tools from sociology, sociobiology, information theory, landscape ecology, and biogeography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About