Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crop

Schmid‐Hempel, Paul; Kacelnik, Alejandro; Houston, Alasdair I.

doi:10.1007/bf00299430

Cited by 320 publications

(227 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

208

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Montgomerie et al (1984) found that flower choice of caged hummingbirds was consistent with predictions from maximization of net energy per volume of nectar reward. In honey bees (Schmid-Hempel et al 1985) foraging behavior agreed with the predictions from maximization of net energetic efficiency, e, where e = (G -C)IC. In ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis Ord 1815) (Welham and Ydenberg 1988) and male Calliope hummingbirds (Stellula calliope Gould 1847) (Tamm 1989), behavior close to efficiency maximization also was observed.…”

Section: About Some Concepts For Further Researchsupporting

confidence: 68%

Invitation Paper (C.P. Alexander Fund): Foraging of Individual Workers in Relation to Colony State in the Social Hymenoptera

Schmid‐Hempel¹,

Winston

Ydenberg

1993

Can Entomol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Canadian Entomolo~isr 125: 12%160 (1993) Workers of social insects are members of colonies that survive and reproduce together. Therefore, the behavioral activities of individual workers should be integrated with colony state. We here summarize and discuss the relationship between colony state and foraging behavior of individual workers under the provisional assumption that the colony is a unit. We argue that colony state can be described by a number of variables that should relate to fitness components in order to be meaningful. Among the possible candidates, colony population size seems to have an overriding importance in many respects, as shown by its relation to fitness components such as survival probability and reproductive performance. Other important variables include colony demography, i.e. caste or size distributions, nutritional status, or queen number. Each of these variables has been shown to affect fitness components; however, the evidence is rather scanty. We also discuss the evidence that variation in colony state variables relates to variation in individual worker behavior. Nutritional status (i.e. low or high levels of food stores) and colony size have been shown repeatedly to affect individual behavior. However, most of the evidence comes from the honey bee. Some studies suggest that behavioral responses are hierarchically structured. More work needs to be done to investigate the actual mechanisms of integration of individual behavior with colony state. Some knowledge has accumulated about the processes that govern recruitment to food sources. We conclude this review by discussing some concepts and problems for further research. These include the concept of a preferred colony state to which the colony should return after disturbance through the behavioral activities of the workers. Further theoretical elaboration and empirical investigations may help to elucidate whether this concept is useful and necessary. A largely neglected issue concerns the number versus effort problem, i.e. whether individuals should work harder or more workers should be allocated to a task that is in demand. We propose a simple scenario that suggests testable predictions. Finally, we discuss how colony state, individual work load, and the dependence of worker mortality rate on activity level may interact to generate different short-term foraging strategies that workers should adopt. ResumeChez les insectes sociaux, les ouvrikres appartiennent i une colonie ou la survie et la reproduction sont des phknombnes collectifs. Les activitks comportementales de chacune des ouvribres font donc partie intkgrante de l'ktat de la colonie. La relation entre I'ktat de la colonie et le comportement de qu&te de nourriture d'ouvrikres particulikres est dkfinie et examinee dans le cadre de l'hypothkse selon laquelle la colonie fonctionne comme une unitk. Nous croyons que I'ktat de la colonie peut &tre dkcrit par un certain nombre de variables qui n'ont de sens que si elles sont relikes aux composantes du "fitness." Parmi l...

show abstract

Section: About Some Concepts For Further Researchsupporting

confidence: 68%

Invitation Paper (C.P. Alexander Fund): Foraging of Individual Workers in Relation to Colony State in the Social Hymenoptera

Schmid‐Hempel¹,

Winston

Ydenberg

1993

Can Entomol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these cases, predation costs represent mechanical or physiological con-straints such that energy spent is essentially a nonrenewable loss of foraging capacity. The first example of a non-replenishable mechanical constraint was the breakdown of the flight apparatus in honey bees (Schmid-Hempel et al 1985, Kacelnik et al 1986, Schmid-Hempel 1987. Schmid-Hempel and his colleagues used energetic efficiency (the ratio of energy gained to energy lost) as the currency that could accurately predict crop-filling behavior in honey bees.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do decapod crustaceans prefer small-sized molluscan prey?

Juanes¹

1992

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

180

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of studies examining crab and lobster predation on hard-shelled molluscs indicated that most predators prefer small-sized prey when offered a range of sizes. I suggest that this pattern of preference for small-sized prey can be explained by considering the mechanical cost of predation. If predation costs are assumed to be non-renewable, then the probability of exhausting them can be included as an additional parameter in the classical diet breadth model. The importance of predation costs in determining prey size selection can be extended to other predators that use mechanical means to attack their prey.

show abstract

“…This is confirmed by observations by Gary and Lorenzen (1976) (cited by Gary and Mussen, 1984) who reported that bees 5-10% of nectar in the honey stomach may be involuntarily taken into the proventriculus during foraging. Thus for a bee carrying 60µl nectar in the honey stomach (Schmid-Hempel et al, 1985) the bee may consume up to 6 µl during the foraging flight.…”

Section: Active Ingredientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction between pesticides and other factors in effects on bees

Thompson

2012

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees are important pollinators of both managed crops and wild flora. An overview of the interactions between pesticides and other factors in effects on bees considered: 1) The importance of the different exposure routes in relation to the overall exposure of bees to pesticides; 2) Multiple exposure to pesticides (including substances used in bee medication) and potential additive and cumulative effects; and 3) Interactions between diseases and susceptibility of bees to pesticides. Nectar foraging bees are likely to experienced highest exposure to both sprayed and systemic seed and soil treatments compounds followed by nurse and brood-attending bees. In both cases the major contribution to exposure was contaminated nectar with direct overspray playing a significant role in exposure. However, there are a variety of other routes (and other bee species) where there is currently insufficient data to fully total exposure: There are a large number of studies that have investigated the interactions between pesticides in bees. By far the majority have related to the interactions involving EBI fungicides and can be related to their inhibition of P450. The scale of the synergy is shown to be dose and season-dependent in acute exposures but there are few data relating to the effect of time between exposures, the effect of route of exposure or on chronic exposure effects at realistic exposure levels. There are a wide range of factors which affect the immunocompetence of bees including diet quality, pest and diseases. Although there are a limited number of laboratory based studies which suggest effects of a pesticide on disease susceptibility there is no clear evidence from field-based studies that exposure of colonies to pesticides results in increased susceptibility to disease or that there is a link between colony loss due to disease and pesticide residues in monitoring studies. KEY WORDSHoneybees, bumble bees, pesticides, disease, mixtures, synergism DISCLAIMERThe present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author. This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author, awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author. This task has been carried out exclusively by the author in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as...

show abstract

Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crop

Cited by 320 publications

References 21 publications

Invitation Paper (C.P. Alexander Fund): Foraging of Individual Workers in Relation to Colony State in the Social Hymenoptera

Invitation Paper (C.P. Alexander Fund): Foraging of Individual Workers in Relation to Colony State in the Social Hymenoptera

Why do decapod crustaceans prefer small-sized molluscan prey?

Interaction between pesticides and other factors in effects on bees

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About