Journals / Türk Tarım - Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

A Model for Determining the Interactions Between some Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Genotypes and Different Grooming Times in Terms of Aggression

Pages
446–451
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Before and after the nectar flow seasons, studies to determine the aggression for all genotypes suitable for the regions will be a good source of information for beekeepers and researchers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In honey bee (Apis mellifera L.), aggression and aggressive behavior occur due to many reasons and the most important one is the genotype.
📊
Key Findings & Data:One of the most important reasons is the absence of queen bees in the colony, and the other is that the amount of nutrients in the hive has decreased to a critical level.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Before and after the nectar flow seasons, studies to determine the aggression for all genotypes suitable for the regions will be a good source of information for beekeepers and researchers.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

In honey bee (Apis mellifera L.), aggression and aggressive behavior occur due to many reasons and the most important one is the genotype. However, regardless of genotype, a bee colony can have different levels of aggression at different times. If the bee’s aggression is not due to racial characteristics, this may indicate some problems in the colony. One of the most important reasons is the absence of queen bees in the colony, and the other is that the amount of nutrients in the hive has decreased to a critical level. Some other environmental effects are effective on bees’ aggression and aggressive behavior. In this study, the determination of the relationships between the aggression of four different honey bee genotypes (Carniolan, Caucasian, Black Sea and Muğla) in Samsun province in two different months (July, August) at different times of the day (09:00-13:00-17:00) was intended. For this purpose, a Log-linear model analysis was made. According to the findings, genotype, month and time, which are the main effects, and genotype × month interaction among the second-order interactions were found to be statistically significant, while genotype * hour and month × hour interactions were not significant. In Samsun province, it was determined that the Carniolan genotype was 7.846 times less, the Caucasian genotype 3.991 times and the Black Sea genotype 3.888 times less aggressive than the Muğla genotype. In addition, it was determined that the aggression in July was 1.185 times less than in August, and they were less aggressive in the daytime than in the evening and morning hours. It was determined that the Carniolan genotype was 2.04 times less aggressive than the Muğla genotype in July. Before and after the nectar flow seasons, studies to determine the aggression for all genotypes suitable for the regions will be a good source of information for beekeepers and researchers.

🔖

Cite This Article

ABACI, S. H., BIYIK, S. (2021). A Model for Determining the Interactions Between some Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Genotypes and Different Grooming Times in Terms of Aggression. Türk Tarım - Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 446–451. https://ajindex.com/articles/341331

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Agresti A. 2002. Cateorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Akyol Y, Yeninar Y, Kaftanoğlu P, Özkök DD. 2003. Bazı saf ve melez bal arısı genotiplerinin (Apis Mellifera L.) farklı mevsimlerdeki hırçınlık davranışlarının belirlenmesi, Uludağ Arıcılık Dergisi, 3(3): 38-40.
  2. Andere C, Palacio MA, Rodriguez EM, Figini E, Dominguez MT, Bedascarrasbure E. 2002. Evaluation of the defensive behavior of two honeybee ecotypes using a laboratory test. Genetics and Molecular Biology, 25(1): 57–60.
  3. Anholt RRH, Mackay TFC. 2012. Genetics of aggression. Annual Review of Genetics, 46: 145–164.
  4. Arechavaleta-Velasco ME, Hunt GJ, Emore C. 2003. Quantitative trait loci that influence the expression of guarding and stinging behaviors of individual honey bees. Behavior genetics, 33(3): 357–64
  5. Atkinson EB, Ellis JD. 2011. Adaptive behaviour of honeybees (Apis mellifera) toward beetle invaders exhibiting various levels of colony integration. Physiological Entomology. 36(3): 282–289
  6. Avalos A, Fang M, Pan H, Lluch AR, Lipka AE, Zhao SD, Giray T, Robinson GE, Zhang G, Hudson ME. 2020. Genomic regions influencing aggressive behavior in honey bees are defined by colony allele frequencies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117(29): 17135-17141, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1922927117 Avalos A, Pan H, Li C, Acevedo-Gonzalez JP, Rendon G, Fields CJ, Brown PJ, Giray T, Robinson GE, Hudson ME, Zhang G. 2017. A soft selective sweep during rapid evolution of gentle behaviour in an Africanized honeybee. Nature Communications, 8: 1550, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01800-0 Bagdatli Kalkan S. 2018. Analysis of relationships between internet usage reasons by log-linear models. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies, 5(4): 98- 109. Berenbaum MR, Calla B. 2021. Honey as a Functional Food for Apis mellifera. Annual Review of Entomology, 66(1): 185- 208. Breed MD, Guzmán-Novoa E, Hunt GJ. 2004. Defensive behavior of honey bees: Organization, genetics, and comparisons with other bees. Annual Review of Entomology, 49(1): 271–298.
  7. Breed MD, Robinson GE, Page Jr RE. 1990. Division of labor during honey bee colony defense. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 27: 395–401. Burnett JD. 1983. Loglinear Analysis: A new tool for educational researchers. Canadian Journal of Education, 8(2): 139- 154. Cengiz MM, Erdoğan Y. 2018. Doğu Anadolu koşullarında farklı balarısı (Apis mellifera L.) genotiplerinin davranış özelliklerinin belirlenmesi. Türk Tarım-Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji d