Search

Many of the fruits that add diversity and nutrition to our diet are wholly or partially dependent upon flower‐visiting insects. For example, apples (Malus spp.) are self‐incompatible and therefore rely on insect pollinators for fruit development and seed production. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) are often migrated into these orchards when the apples are in bloom. While previous studies have focused on the impact of honey bees to fruit orchards, fewer studies have examined the reciprocal relationship of the orchards to honey bees, particularly if the bees are in the orchard for the entire foraging season, not just during bloom. Here we investigated the foraging dynamics of honey bees in apple orchards in Virginia for two full foraging seasons (April–October, 2018–2019). We decoded, mapped, and analyzed the waggle dances (n = 3710) made by returning foragers, which communicate the distance and direction from the hive to valuable resources, usually nectar or pollen. We found that bees foraged locally at <2 km throughout the season in both 2018 and 2019, with some long‐range recruitment of up to 11 km. Contrary to our expectations, apple blooms did not drive honey bee foraging. We determined in our calculations of percent (%) foraging that honey bees recruit more to the apple orchards after the bloom than during the bloom (29.4% vs. 18.6% in 2018 and 28.5% vs. 21.4% in 2019, respectively). Interestingly, honey bees recruited more to forests while the apples bloomed (36.9% and 25.7% in 2018 and 2019, respectively). Lastly, our odds ratio analysis, which includes a distance correction, indicates the honey bees were more than twice as likely to recruit to apple orchards in June, which is after the bloom, than in April or May, which is during the bloom. Our ground truthing revealed that post‐bloom apple orchards provided foraging opportunities on the growing understory of red and white clover (Trifolium spp.) and plantain (Plantago spp.). These data might therefore have important implications for best management practice decisions for bees located in fruit orchards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Honey bees provide invaluable economic and ecological services while simultaneously facing stressors that may compromise their health. For example, agricultural landscapes, such as a row crop system, are necessary for our food production, but they may cause poor nutrition in bees from a lack of available nectar and pollen. Here, we investigated the foraging dynamics of honey bees in a row crop environment. We decoded, mapped, and analyzed 3459 waggle dances, which communicate the location of where bees collected food, for two full foraging seasons (April–October, 2018–2019). We found that bees recruited nestmates mostly locally (<2 km) throughout the season. The shortest communicated median distances (0.474 and 0.310 km), indicating abundant food availability, occurred in July in both years, which was when our row crops were in full bloom. We determined, by plotting and analyzing the communicated locations, that almost half of the mid‐summer recruitment was to row crops, with 37% (2018) and 50% (2019) of honey bee dances indicating these fields. Peanut was the most attractive in July, followed by corn and cotton but not soybean. Overall, row crop fields are indicated by a surprisingly large proportion of recruitment dances, suggesting that similar agricultural landscapes may also provide mid‐summer foraging opportunities for honey bees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent evidence suggests that flower‐rich areas within cities could play an important role in pollinator conservation, but direct comparison of floral resources within agricultural and urban areas has proved challenging to perform over large scales.Here we use the waggle dances of honeybees Apis mellifera L. to perform large‐scale landscape surveys at heavily urban or agricultural sites for a key pollinator of wild and crop plants. We analysed 2,827 dances that were performed by 20 colonies in SE England.We show that hive median foraging trip distance is consistently lower at urban sites across the entire season. The sucrose content of collected nectar did not significantly differ between urban and agricultural land, ruling out the possibility that longer foraging distances in agricultural sites were driven by distant but nectar‐rich resources.Within cities, bees preferentially targeted residential areas on foraging trips, while trips to mass‐flowering crops overwhelmingly dominated at agricultural sites. For both land‐use types, distances flown increased in the summer, but there was high variation in temporal patterns between individual sites.Policy implications. From the self‐reported perspective of a generalist pollinator, forage was easier to find in heavily urbanized areas than in the modern agricultural landscapes that we studied. A focus on continuous spatial and temporal provision within agricultural environments is key to redressing this imbalance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hygienic behavior in honey bees is a heritable trait of individual workers that confers colony-level resistance against various brood diseases. Hygienic workers detect and remove dead or diseased brood from sealed cells. However, this behavior is quite rare, with only c.10% of unselected colonies showing high levels of hygiene. Beekeepers can potentially increase this by screening colonies for hygiene and breeding from the best. However, the level of hygiene expressed by a colony is variable, which poses a challenge to colony selection. In this study, wesystematically varied two factors thought to be of importance in infuencing hygiene levels, "nectar" availability, by feeding or not feeding sucrose syrup, and brood amount, by adding or removing brood, to determine what effect they had on hygienic behavior. Wetested 19 colonies repeatedly over a 4-mo period using the freeze-killed brood assay, a standard technique to quantify hygienic behavior. Two days after freeze-killed brood treatment, our colonies showed a wide range of brood removal levels, with colony means ranging from 31.7 ± 22.5 to 93 ± 6.9 (mean% ± SD). Neither the food nor the brood manipulation had an effect on hygiene levels. Colony size and time of year were also nonsigniÞcant. The only signiÞcant effect was a three-way interaction between syrup availability, amount of brood, and time of the year, resulting in reduced hygienic behavior early in the season (spring), in colonies with added brood that were not fed sucrose syrup. Overall, these results suggest that hygienic behavior is not greatly affected by environmental conditions typical of a real-life beekeeping, and that screening of colonies can be done anytime without special regard to nectar conditions or brood levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Task-partitioning is an important organisational principle in insect colonies and is thought to increase colony efficiency. In task-partitioning, tasks such as the collection of resources are divided into subtasks in which the material is passed from one worker to another. Previous models have assumed that worker–worker interactions are random, but experimental evidence suggests that receivers can have preferences to handle familiar materials. We used an agent-based simulation model to explore how non-random interactions during task-partitioning with direct transfer affect colony work efficiency. Because task-partitioning also allows receivers and donors to acquire foraging related information we analysed the effect of non-random interactions on informative interaction patterns. When receivers non-randomly rejected donors offering certain materials, donors overall experienced increased time delays, hive stay durations and a decreased number of transfer partners. However, the number of transfers was slightly increased, which can improve the acquisition and quality of information for donors. When receivers were non-randomly attracted to donors offering certain materials, donors experienced reduced transfer delays, hive stay durations and an increased number of simultaneous receivers. The number of transfers is slightly decreased. The effects of the two mechanisms “non-random rejection” and “non-random attraction” are biggest if the number of foragers and receivers is balanced. In summary, our results show that colony ergonomics are improved if receivers do not reject donors and if mechanisms exist that help receivers detect potential donors, such as learning the odour of the transferred food. Finally, our simulations suggest that non-random interactions can potentially affect the foraging patterns of colonies in changing environments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]