The interplay of intracolonial genotypic variance and self-organisation of dominance hierarchies in honeybees

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511542275.005

3 - The interplay of intracolonial genotypic variance and self-organisation of dominance hierarchies in honeybees

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2009

Robin F. A. Moritz and

Robin M. Crewe

Edited by

Charlotte Hemelrijk

Show author details

Robin F. A. Moritz: Affiliation:
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
Robin M. Crewe: Affiliation:
University of Pretoria
Charlotte Hemelrijk: Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Multiple mating in social insects

Multiple mating of females (polyandry) is a rare phenomenon in social hymenoptera (Strassmann, 2001). The adaptive value of single mating seems obvious: females should mate with as few males as possible to minimise predation risk during mating, the energy costs involved in mating and the chance of contracting a disease. Most importantly, polyandry nullifies the benefits of male haploidy for the inclusive fitness of the sterile workers in the colony. Multiple mating dramatically reduces the intracolonial relatedness (Boomsma and Ratnieks, 1996) and hence reduces the force of the arguments of kin selection theory (Hamilton 1964a, b), because the high intracolonial genotypic diversity creates an extreme potential for conflict among the nest members. Fourteen evolutionary rescue hypotheses have been identified to explain the potential benefits of polyandry in spite of the additional mating costs (Crozier and Fjerdingstad, 2001).

Although considerable effort has been expended to explain the evolution of polyandry, the consequences of polyandry for the organisation of the society have received less attention. The honeybees (Apis spp.) may be an exception in this regard. This is primarily due to a relatively large research community working on Apis because of its economic significance. The knowledge accumulated on the biology of Apis exceeds that of other social insects by far. The other rather fortunate property is the extreme degree of polyandry in the honeybee (Palmer and Oldroyd, 2000). Multiple mating in Apis can exceed 50 drones per queen (Moritz et al., 1995, Palmer and Oldroyd, 2001).

Type: Chapter
Information: Self-Organisation and Evolution of Biological and Social Systems , pp. 36 - 49

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542275.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alber, M., Jordan, R., Ruttner, F. and Ruttner, H. (1955). Von der Paarung der Honigbiene. Z. Bienenforsch. 3, 1–28Google Scholar

Boomsma, J. J. and Ratnieks, F. L. W. (1996). Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B 351, 947–975CrossRef Google Scholar

Butler, C. G. (1959). Queen substance. Bee World 40, 269–275CrossRef Google Scholar

Butler, C. G., Callow, R. K., Johnston, F. R. S. and Johnston, N. C. (1962). The isolation and synthesis of queen substance, 9-oxodec-trans-2-enoic acid, a honeybee pheromone. Proc. Roy. Entomol. Soc. London 155, 417–432CrossRef Google Scholar

Crewe, R. M., Moritz, R. F. A. and Lattorff, M. (2004). Using silicon tubes for trapping volatile compounds on biological surfaces in vivo. Chemoecol. 14, 77–79CrossRef Google Scholar

Crozier, R. H. and Fjerdingstad, E. J. (2001). Polyandry in social Hymenoptera: disunity in diversity?Ann. Zool. Fenn. 38, 267–285Google Scholar

Haberl, M. and Tautz, D. (1998). Sperm usage in honey bees. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42, 247–255CrossRef Google Scholar

Hamilton, W. D. (1964a). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J. Theoret. Biol. 7, 1–16CrossRef Google Scholar

Hamilton, W. D. (1964b). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J. Theoret. Biol. 7, 17–52CrossRef Google Scholar

Hillesheim, E., Koeniger, N. and Moritz, R. F. A. (1989). Colony performance in honeybees (Apis mellifera capensis) depends on the proportion of subordinate and dominant workers. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24, 291–296CrossRef Google Scholar

Hunt, G. J., Page, R. E. and Fondrk, M. K. (1995a). Identification of quantitative trait loci that affect pollen-hoarding behavior in the honeybee. J. Cell Biochem. Suppl. 21A, 196–198Google Scholar

Hunt, G. J., Page, R. E. and Fondrk, M. K. (1995b). Major quantitative trait loci affecting honeybee foraging behavior. Genetics 141, 1537–1545Google Scholar

Hunt, G. J., Collins, A. M, Rivera, R., Page, R. E. and Guzman-Novoa, E. (1999). Quantitative trait loci influencing honeybee alarm pheromone levels. J. Hered. 90, 585–589CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kryger, P., Kryger, U. and Moritz, R. F. A. (2000). Genotypical variability for the tasks of water collecting and scenting in a honey bee colony. Ethology 106, 769–779CrossRef Google Scholar

Moritz, R. F. A. and Hillesheim, E. (1985). Inheritance of dominance in honeybees (Apis mellifera capensis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17, 87–89CrossRef Google Scholar

Moritz, R. F. A., Kryger, P. and Koeniger, G.et al. (1995). High degree of polyandry in Apis dorsata queens detected by microsatellite variability. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37, 357–363CrossRef Google Scholar

Moritz, R. F. A., Kryger, P. and Allsopp, M. (1996). Competition for royalty in bees. Nature 384, 31CrossRef Google Scholar

Moritz, R. F. A., Beye, M. and Hepburn, H. R. (1998). Estimating the contribution of laying workers to population fitness in African honeybees (Apis mellifera) with molecular markers. Insects Soc. 45, 277–287CrossRef Google Scholar

Moritz, R. F. A., Simon, U. E. and Crewe, R. M. (2000). Pheromonal contest between honeybee workers. Naturwiss. 87, 395–397CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Moritz, R. F. A., Crewe, R. M. and Hepburn, H. R. (2001). The role of the queen in the distribution of workers in the honeybee colony. Ethology 107, 1–13Google Scholar

Moritz, R. F. A., Crewe, R. M. and Lattorf, M. (2003). Honeybee workers (Apis mellifera capensis) compete for producing queen-like pheromone signals. Proc. Roy. Soc. London 271: S98–S100CrossRef Google Scholar

Neumann, P. and Moritz, R. F. A. (2002). The Cape Honeybee phenomenon: the sympatric evolution of a social parasite in real time. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 271–281Google Scholar

Page, R. E. (1986). Sperm utilization in social insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 10, 359–361Google Scholar

Page, R. E. and Mitchell, S. D. (1998). Self-organization and the evolution of division of labor. Apidologie 29, 171–190CrossRef Google Scholar

Page, R. E., Fondrk, M. K., Hunt, G. J.et al. (2000). Genetic dissection of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) foraging behavior. J. Hered. 91, 474–479CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Palmer, K. and Oldroyd, B. P. (2000). Evolution of multiple mating in the genus Apis. Apidologie 31, 235–248CrossRef Google Scholar

Palmer, K. and Oldroyd, B. P. (2001). Mating frequency in Apis florea revisited (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Insectes Soc. 48, 40–43CrossRef Google Scholar

Plettner, E., Slessor, K. N., Winston, M. L. and Oliver, J. E. (1996). Caste-selective pheromone biosynthesis in honeybees. Science 271, 1851–1853CrossRef Google Scholar

Plettner, E., Slessor, K. N. and Winston, M. L. (1998). Biosynthesis of mandibular acids in honey bees (Apis mellifera): de novo synthesis, route of fatty acid hydroxylation and caste selective beta-oxidation. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 28, 31–42CrossRef Google Scholar

Ratnieks, F. L. W. (1988). Reproductive harmony via mutual policing by workers in eusocial insects. Am. Naturalist 132, 217–236Google Scholar

Robinson, G. E. and Page, R. E. (1988). Genetic determination of guarding and undertaking in honey bee colonies. Nature 333, 356–358CrossRef Google Scholar

Schlüns, H., Moritz, R. F. A. and Kryger, P. (2001). Behavioral control over mating frequency in queen honeybees (Apis mellifera L.): revisiting the sperm-limitation-hypothesis. In Proc. 2001 Berlin Mg European Sections of IUSSI, p. 105

Seeley, T. D. (1979). Queen substance dispersal by messenger workers in honeybee colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 5, 391–415CrossRef Google Scholar

Simon, U. E., Moritz, R. F. A. and Crewe, R. M. (2001). The ontogenetic pattern of mandibular gland components in queenless worker bees (Apis mellifera capensis Esch.). J. Insect Physiol. 47, 735–738CrossRef Google Scholar

Strassmann, J. (2001). The rarity of multiple mating by females in the social Hymenoptera. Insectes Soc. 48, 1–13CrossRef Google Scholar

Taber, S. (1955). Sperm distribution in the spermathecae of multiple-mated queen honey bees. J. Econ. Entomol. 48, 522–525CrossRef Google Scholar

Tarpy, D. R. and Page, R. E. (2000). No behavioral control over mating frequency in queen honeybees (Apis mellifera L.): implications for the evolution of extreme polyandry. Am. Naturalist 155, 820–827CrossRef Google Scholar

Turing, A. (1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B 237, 37–72CrossRef Google Scholar

Velthuis, H. H. W. (1972). Observations of the transmission of queen substances in the honeybee colony by the attendants of the queen. Behaviour 41, 105–129CrossRef Google Scholar

Winston, M. L. and Slessor, K. N. (1992). The essence of royalty: honey bee queen pheromone. Am. Sci. 80, 374–385Google Scholar

Winston, M. L. and Slessor, K. N. (1998). Honey bee primer pheromones and colony organization: gaps in our knowledge. Apidologie 29, 81–95CrossRef Google Scholar

Wossler, T. C. (2002). Pheromone mimicry by Apis mellifera capensis social parasites leads to reproductive anarchy in host Apis mellifera scutellata colonies. Apidologie 33, 139–163CrossRef Google Scholar

Woyke, J. (1960). Natural and artificial insemination of queen honey bees. Pszczelnicze Zeszyty Naukowe 4, 183–275Google Scholar