Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2001 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3

Reward frequency: Effects on flower choices made by differents honeybee races in Turkey

Nektar sıklığının Türkiye'de bulunan farklı bal arısı ırklarının çiçek tercihleri üzerindeki etkileri

Pages
169–176
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

The reverse was true for A.m. cypria.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We compared the European honeybee races Apis mellifera armeniaca, A.m. caucasica, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These subspecies are endemic to very different habitats.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The reverse was true for A.m. cypria.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

We compared the European honeybee races Apis mellifera armeniaca, A.m. caucasica, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca. These subspecies are endemic to very different habitats. Additionally, they are exposed to very different levels of predation. A.m. caucasica exists where honeybee predators typically are rare, while the remaining subspecies have ranges that coincide with areas where honeybee predators are abundant. Foraging decisions of workers visiting artificial flower patches containing blue, white, and yellow flowers were recorded. We tested whether foragers responded to differences in rewarding flower frequency among flower color morphs. Division of labor occurred among foragers of each race; some bees frequented yellow flowers while other bees from the same hive visited blue and white flowers. A.m. caucasica foragers ignored differences in reward frequency among flower colors. Even bees that frequented blue and white flowers did not base flower choice on reward frequency differences between just these two color morphs. In contrast, A.m. armeniaca, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca, however, did respond to differences in reward frequencies, tending to avoid the less frequently rewarding flower color morph. A.m. armeniaca forager division of labor (foragers committed to yellow or to blue and white flowers) was dominant to energy maximization. The reverse was true for A.m. cypria.

Özet

We compared the European honeybee races Apis mellifera armeniaca, A.m. caucasica, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca. These subspecies are endemic to very different habitats. Additionally, they are exposed to very different levels of predation. A.m. caucasica exists where honeybee predators typically are rare, while the remaining subspecies have ranges that coincide with areas where honeybee predators are abundant. Foraging decisions of workers visiting artificial flower patches containing blue, white, and yellow flowers were recorded. We tested whether foragers responded to differences in rewarding flower frequency among flower color morphs. Division of labor occurred among foragers of each race; some bees frequented yellow flowers while other bees from the same hive visited blue and white flowers. A.m. caucasica foragers ignored differences in reward frequency among flower colors. Even bees that frequented blue and white flowers did not base flower choice on reward frequency differences between just these two color morphs. In contrast, A.m. armeniaca, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca, however, did respond to differences in reward frequencies, tending to avoid the less frequently rewarding flower color morph. A.m. armeniaca forager division of labor (foragers committed to yellow or to blue and white flowers) was dominant to energy maximization. The reverse was true for A.m. cypria.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇAKMAK, İ., WELLS, H. (2022). Reward frequency: Effects on flower choices made by differents honeybee races in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3, 169–176. https://ajindex.com/articles/616652

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Ruttner, F. Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honeybees. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1988
  2. Michener, C.D. The Social Behavior of the Bee: A Comparative Study. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, USA, 1974
  3. Deodiker, G.B. In: Recent Research in Geology (ed. KB Power) Vol
  4. Hindustan, Delhi, India, 1978
  5. Smith, D.R. Diversity in the Genus Apis. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, USA, 1991
  6. Maeterlink, M. La Vie de Abeilles. Paris: Bibliotheque-Champentier, Fasquelle Editeurs, 1901
  7. Ribbands, C.R. The Behavior and Social Life of Honeybees. London: Bee Research Association Limited, 1953
  8. Frisch, K. von. Tranzsprache und Orientierung der Bienen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1965
  9. Moezel, P.G., Delfs Van der, J.C., Pate, J.S., Loneragen, W.A., Bell, D.T. Pollen collection by honey bees in shrublands of the northern sandplains of Western Australia. J. Apic. Res. 26, 224- 232, 1987
  10. Free, J.B. Insect Pollination of Crops. Academic Press, London, 1993
  11. Wells, H., Wells, P.H., and Smith, D.M. Honeybee response to reward size and colour in an artificial flower patch. J. Apic. Res. 20, 172-179, 1981
  12. Wells, H., Wells, P.H., and Smith, D.M. Ethological isolation of plants
  13. Colour selection by honeybees. J. Apic. Res. 22, 33-44, 1983
  14. Waser, N.M. The adaptive nature of floral traits: ideas and evidence. In: Pollination Biology (Ed. by Real, L.). New York: Academic Press, 1983
  15. Chittka, L., Thomson, J.D., and Waser, N.M. Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 86, 361-377, 1999
  16. Hill, P.S., Wells, P.H., and Wells, H. Spontaneous flower constancy and learning in honey bees as a function of colour. Anim. Behav. 54, 615-627, 1997
  17. Wells, H. and Wells, P.H. Honey bee foraging ecology: optimal diet, minimal uncertainty or individual constancy. J. Anim. Ecol. 52, 829-836, 1983
  18. Çakmak, I, and Wells, H. Honey bee forager individual constancy: innate or learned? BeeScience 3, 165-173, 1995
  19. Ohyama, T., Couvillon, P.A., and Bitterman, M.E. Perseveration in the color choices of honeybees. J. Insect Behav. 8, 409-415, 1995
  20. Wells, H. and Wells, P.H. Optimal diet, minimal uncertainty and individual constancy in the foraging of honeybees. J. Anim. Ecol. 55, 881-891, 1986
  21. Wells, H., Hill, P.S., and Wells, P.H. Nectivore foraging ecology: rewards differing in sugar types. Ecol. Entomol. 17, 280-288, 1992
  22. Banschbach, V.S. and Waddington, K.D. Risk sensitive foraging in honeybees: no conse