Bees at War: Interspecific Battles and Nest Usurpation in Stingless Bees

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. abstract: We provide the first evidence for interspecific warfare in bees, a spectacular natural phenomenon that involves a series of aerial battles and leads to thousands of fatalities from both attacking and defending colonies. Molecular analysis of fights at a hive of the Australian stingless bee Tetragonula carbonaria revealed that the attack was launched by a related species, Tetragonula hockingsi, which has only recently extended its habitat into southeastern Queensland. Following a succession of attacks by the same T. hockingsi colony over a 4-month period, the defending T. carbonaria colony was defeated and the hive usurped, with the invading colony installing a new queen. We complemented our direct observations with a 5-year study of more than 260 Tetragonula hives and found interspecific hive changes, which were likely to be usurpation events, occurring in 46 hives over this period. We discuss how fighting swarms and hive usurpation fit with theoretical predictions on the evolution of fatal fighting and highlight the many unexplained features of these battles that warrant further study.

Dynamic microbiome evolution in social bees

“…3C and fig. S2B), despite having ample opportunities to swap microbes at shared floral resources, during hive robbing, or in construction of interspecific colonies ( 27 – 29 ). Linear modeling corroborates the greater weight of host identity over sampling location in predicting gut community composition (fig.…”

Colony-level non-associative plasticity of alarm responses in the stingless honey bee, Tetragonisca angustula

“…One of the main threats to any stingless honey bee colony comes from other meliponine bee species that raid colonies (Sakagami et al 1993; Cunningham et al. 2014; von Zuben et al 2016; Grüter et al 2017b).…”

Cryptic castes, social context and colony defence in a social bee, Tetragonula carbonaria

“…The consistent pattern of differential investment in antennal sensilla between guards and foragers likely reflects differences in required capacity to detect signals. Guards are the frontline defence of the nests of meliponine bees, and threats of usurpation from neighbouring conspecific colonies are common (Cunningham et al, 2014;Grüter, von Zuben, Segers & Cunningham, 2016). In bumblebees, larger workers have a higher density of olfactory antennal sensilla and greater odour sensitivity (Spaethe, Brockmann, Halbig & Tautz, 2007).…”

“…Chasing, (one bee pursues the other, usually accompanied by antennating on the abdomen of the escaping bee), a behaviour common in Apis mellifera (Breed, Guzmán-Novoa & Hunt, 2004) and other meliponines (Inoue, Roubik & Suka, 1999); and grasping/fighting with mandibles and legs preventing either bee from escaping. This fighting behaviour is often observed in this species and can involve a swarm of thousands of workers (Cunningham et al, 2014;Gloag et al, 2008;Heard, 1996).…”

“…Guards in T. carbonaria are visible at the entrance and challenge returning workers and potential intruders (Gloag, Heard, Beekman & Oldroyd, 2008). If an intruder is detected, they are removed by a guard in a physical contest that is usually fatal for both combatants, ensuring the cost of misidentification is high (Cunningham, Hereward, Heard, De Barro & West, 2014;Gloag et al, 2008;Shackleton et al, 2015). We examined variation in antennal morphology and social cues across guards and foragers in this casteless species and determined their role in nestmate recognition and defence.…”