The behavioral genetics of colony defense in honeybees: Genetic variability for guarding behavior

Abstract

Guard honeybees stand at the entrance of colonies and facilitate the exclusion of nonnestmates from the colony. In this study, we examined the hypothesis that genetic variability among individuals in colonies might explain variability in guarding activity. To do this, we cross-fostered honey bees between colonies with high-defensive responses and colonies with low-defensive responses in alarm pheromone tests. Individuals from high-defensive colonies were more likely to guard in their own colonies (controls) than cross-fostered bees from low-defensive colonies. Cross-fostered high-defensive bees also were more like to guard in low-defense colonies. These results support the hypothesis that interindividual differences in guarding behavior are at least partially under genetic control. A positive correlation between number of guards and response to alarm pheromone demonstrates a link between behaviorally separated components of the overall defensive response.

The defensive response of the honeybee Apis mellifera

“…Complex interactions between individuals are also at play, as evidenced by cross-fostering experiments showing that bees from an aggressive genetic background tend to take over guarding when raised in more gentle colonies, and inversely, gentle bees are less likely to guard when placed in aggressive colonies (Breed and Rogers, 1991). In parallel, cross-fostered bees seem to adopt the propensity to sting of their host colony to some extent (Guzman-Novoa and Page, 1994;Paxton et al, 1994), which suggests that guarding and stinging are differentially regulated but both dependent on colony environment.…”

“…1A), or, when very excited, with their mandibles open and their wings held away from their body, ready to fly towards any intruder (Fig. 1B) (Breed and Rogers, 1991;Butler and Free, 1952;Free, 1954;Moore et al, 1987;Paxton et al, 1994). The main roles of guards (described in more detail below) are to check whether incoming bees are their nestmates, and to alert the colony to the presence of a predator.…”

Context affects nestmate recognition errors in honey bees and stingless bees

“…Recognition behaviour in both bees has been widely studied, and both have natural nest entrances with guards present. Honey bee guards represent a temporal subcaste of workers who perform their recognition duties for 1-1.5days before transitioning into another duty (Breed and Rogers, 1991). Tetragonisca angustula also possesses highly developed recognition behaviour: guards stand on the outside of the wax entrance tube ('standing guards') to examine incomers to the hive, similar to A. mellifera.…”

“…Because of rapid turnover in guards each day (Breed and Rogers, 1991) and because guards used previously were marked, we therefore used new guards each experimental day. Guarding behaviour in all contexts (natural entrance plus Treatments 1-4) was tested on all days.…”

Subjective evaluation of defensive behavior in the Syrian honeybee (Apis mellifera syriaca)

“…Factors causing such variability in defensive behavioral phenotypes include social (non-linear) interactions (Breed and Rogers, 1991;Hunt et al, 2003), location (Mammo, 1976), weather conditions (Collins, 1981;Drum and Rothenbuhler, 1984;Southwick and Moritz, 1987), colony size Hunt et al, 2003), nectar flow (Lecomte, 1963), honey stores (Winston, 1987), electric charges (Warnke, 1976), the endogenous circadian clock (Troen et al, 2008), season and time of day (Woyke, 1992), inbreeding of queen and workers (Bienefeld et al, 1989), maternal effects (Bienefeld and Pirchner, 1990), quantitative trait loci and paternal dominance effects Zakour et al 138 Defensive behavior in Syrian honeybee (Guzmán-Novoa et al, 2002, and subjectivity of the observer (Boch and Rothenbuhler, 1974). The docility of honeybee colonies is an important factor in practical beekeeping; consequently, this trait is an important selection trait in honeybee breeding (Bienefeld et al, 2007;.…”