Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:49:25.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of moving colonies of honeybees to new sites on their subsequent foraging behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. B. Free
J. B. Free
Affiliation:
Bee Research Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Groups of colonies have been moved to crops requiring pollination: group A, before any blossom appeared; group B, when 5–15% of the crop was in flower; and group C, when the crop was in full flower, and the amount which the colonies of the different groups visited the crop was determined. The results tend to show that colonies of group B visited the experimental crop more than colonies of group A, thus supporting recommendations that colonies should not be moved to a crop requiring pollination until it has started to flower, so that the bees will not have previously become conditioned to visiting other flower species in the locality.

2. When a colony is moved to a new site its foragers tend to visit species they have visited previously, and the amount of a particular pollen that a colony collects at a new site is sometimes related to the amount of it the colony collected before it was moved.

3. The conclusion of previous workers that different colonies utilize the local flora in different ways have been confirmed. Different colonies vary greatly both in the number and kind of species they visit and in the extent to which they visit the same species. Although the extent to which colonies visit certain species tends to be related to the extent they have visited them previously, exceptions often occur.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , August 1959 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Brittain, W. H. (1933). Bull. Dept. Agric. Can. N.S. 162, 91.Google Scholar
Cooper, B. A. (1952). Bee World, 33, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, J. E. (1942). J. Econ. Ent. 35, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, D. (1952). The Pollen loads of the Honeybee. London: Bee Research Association.Google Scholar
Howlett, F. S. (1934). Bull Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. 167, 65.Google Scholar
Louveaux, J. (1954). Apiculteur, 98, sect. sci. 43.Google Scholar
Maurizio, A. (1953). Schweiz. Bztg. Beiheft 20.Google Scholar
Moore-Ede, W. E. (1947). Brit. Bee J. 75, 448.Google Scholar
Jones, L. G., Osterli, V. P., Bunnelle, P. R. & Reed, A. D. (1953). Circ. Calif. Agric. Ext. Serv. no. 432.Google Scholar
Percival, M. S. (1955). New Phytol. 54, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwan, B. & Martinous, A. (1954). Lantbr Högsk. Ann. 57, 1.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. C. (1946). Wash. St. Coll. Ext. Bull. 342.Google Scholar
Stapel, C. (1934). Tidsskr. Planteavl, 40, 301.Google Scholar
Synge, A. D. (1947). J. Anim. Ecol. 16, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, F. E. & Bishop, R. K. (1940). J. Econ. Ent. 33, 866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, G. F. & Burke, P. W. (1952). Bull. Ont. Agric. Coll. 490.Google Scholar
Wadey, H. J. (1944). Bee World, 25, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, R. L., Telford, H. S. & Menke, H. F. (1949). Sta. Circ. State Coll. Wash. no. 75.Google Scholar
Zander, E. (1936). Bienenkunde im Obstbau. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer.Google Scholar