Search

Abstract Honey bees process nectar into honey by active evaporation on the tongue and passive evaporation involving nest ventilation and fanning behaviour, as well as enzymatic action. The elimination of excess water from nectar carries considerable energetic costs. The concentration of the nectar load is assumed to remain constant during transport. However, some of this water elimination may occur before foragers return to the nest and pass their nectar loads to receiver bees. In honey bees captured while foraging in Macadamia orchards, we show that the nectar in their crops has approximately twice the sugar concentration of the fresh nectar in flowers. This was true for four Macadamia cultivars, with up to 75% of the initial water content being removed. There is a further concentration increase in the crops of returning bees captured at the hive entrance. The only possible route of water elimination from the crop is via evaporation from the mouthparts. We calculate the savings in honey processing costs to be on average 35 times more than the reduction in flight costs due to reduced body mass. Pre-concentration of nectar in foraging honey bees may be widespread, and of crucial importance for honey storage.

Over a decade, declines in honey bee colonies have raised worldwide concerns. Several potentially contributing factors have been investigated, e.g. parasites, diseases, and pesticides. Neonicotinoid pesticides have received much attention due to their intensive use in crop protection, and their adverse effects on many levels of honey bee physiology led the European Union to ban these compounds. Due to their neuronal target, a receptor expressed throughout the insect nervous system, studies have focused mainly on neuroscience and behaviour. Through the Geometric Framework of nutrition, we investigated effects of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam on survival, food consumption and sucrose sensitivity of honey bees (Apis mellifera). Thiamethoxam did not affect protein and carbohydrate intake, but decreased responses to high concentrations of sucrose. Interestingly, when bees ate fixed unbalanced diets, dietary protein facilitated better sucrose detection. Both thiamethoxam and dietary protein influenced survival. These findings suggest that, in the presence of a pesticide and unbalanced food, honey bee health may be severely challenged. Consequences for foraging efficiency and colony activity, cornerstones of honey bee health, are also discussed.

Pollen is the natural source of protein for bees and it is commonly assumed that a high protein content in pollen is beneficial. Investigation of the optimal nutrient ratio for honeybees was prompted by our earlier study showing surprisingly high mortality in caged honeybees fed with the protein-rich pollen of Aloe greatheadii var davyana, although field bees experience optimal growth when feeding on this pollen. We tested the effect of different protein sources and different protein:carbohydrate (P:C) ratios on the survival and ovarian activation of caged bees. Bees fed casein showed consistently higher survival than those fed royal jelly or aloe pollen, regardless of P:C ratios. They survived longer on lower P:C ratios and longest on a pure carbohydrate diet. The greatest ovarian activation was recorded for bees fed royal jelly in a 1:3 P:C ratio, showing the superior quality of royal jelly for supporting development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract  Honeybees are highly efficient at regulating the biophysical parameters of their hive according to colony needs. Thermoregulation has been the most extensively studied aspect of nest homeostasis. In contrast, little is known about how humidity is regulated in beehives, if at all. Although high humidity is necessary for brood development, regulation of this parameter by honeybee workers has not yet been demonstrated. In the past, humidity was measured too crudely for a regulation mechanism to be identified. We reassess this issue, using miniaturised data loggers that allow humidity measurements in natural situations and at several places in the nest. We present evidence that workers influence humidity in the hive. However, there are constraints on potential regulation mechanisms because humidity optima may vary in different locations of the nest. Humidity could also depend on variable external factors, such as water availability, which further impair the regulation. Moreover, there are trade-offs with the regulation of temperature and respiratory gas exchanges that can disrupt the establishment of optimal humidity levels. As a result, we argue that workers can only adjust humidity within sub-optimal limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]