Different bees, different needs: how nest-site requirements have shaped the decision-making processes in homeless honeybees (Apisspp.)

Abstract

During reproductive swarming, a honeybee swarm needs to decide on a new nest site and then move to the chosen site collectively. Most studies of swarming and nest-site selection are based on one species, Natural colonies of live in tree cavities. The quality of the cavity is critical to the survival of a swarm. Other honeybee species nest in the open, and have less strict nest-site requirements, such as the open-nesting dwarf honeybee builds a nest comprised of a single comb suspended from a twig. For a cavity-nesting species, there is only a limited number of potential nest sites that can be located by a swarm, because suitable sites are scarce. By contrast, for an open-nesting species, there is an abundance of equally suitable twigs. While the decision-making process of cavity-nesting bees is geared towards selecting the best site possible, open-nesting species need to coordinate collective movement towards areas with potential nest sites. Here, we argue that the nest-site selection processes of and have been shaped by each species' specific nest-site requirements. Both species use the same behavioural algorithm, tuned to allow each species to solve their species-specific problem.This article is part of the theme issue 'Collective movement ecology'.

A preliminary detective survey of hymenopteran insects at Jazan Lake Dam Region, Southwest of Saudi Arabia

“…Importance: They are pollinators of tropical fruit crops inhabiting forest and more susceptible to predation from cavity nesters with large numbers of defensive workers because of their open nests and small colonies ( Beekman and Oldroyd, 2018 ).…”

Collective movement in ecology: from emerging technologies to conservation and management

“…Their simulation based on a generic migratory salmon life history suggests that density-dependent dispersal can promote population robustness at the metapopulation level in the context of environmental change. In a social insect case study, Beekman & Oldroyd [61] use nest-site selection by two honeybee species (Apis spp.) to illustrate how a species' ecology may tune the decision-making processes underlying its collective movement.…”

“…Similarly, anthropogenic noise pollution is thought to disrupt natural (social) behaviour in many marine and terrestrial organisms [103,104], and air and light pollution are likely to do the same. In all of these cases, social interaction rules may be finely tuned to optimize fitness [22,23,61,64] and altering these interactions would then lead to maladaptive behaviours. A similar mismatch between optimal collective behaviour and environmental conditions may occur when the social behaviours do not change, but the environmental conditions do.…”

Collective decision‐making when quantity is more important than quality: Lessons from a kidnapping social parasite

“…In foraging decisions by the honeybee, sharing information about location (via the waggle dance) is only advantageous when resources are clumped (Dornhaus & Chittka, 2004). In collective decisions about nest‐site selection, the abundance of quality nesting resources influences whether quality‐based recruitment (Makinson et al., 2011) and quorum sensing (Diwold et al., 2011; Makinson et al., 2017) are part of the decision‐making process, as illustrated by differences between the European honeybee Apis mellifera and the dwarf honeybee A. florea (reviewed in Beekman & Oldroyd, 2018).…”

“…Take for example the two honeybee species mentioned above, whose nesting ecologies contribute to their differences in decision‐making. The dwarf honeybee nests itinerantly on tree branches whereas the European honeybee commits to pre‐formed cavities for life, making the costs of selecting a poor nest longer lasting (Beekman & Oldroyd, 2018). Thus, the need for accuracy is greater in the European honeybee, as reflected in their greater investment in mechanisms to increase accuracy (i.e.…”