Honey bee (Apis mellifera) guards discriminate nestmates from non-nestmates at the hive entrance. The acceptance threshold of guards is known to change adaptively, for example becoming less permissive when the number of intruder bees from other colonies increases. These adaptive shifts can occur within minutes. What is unknown is the mechanism behind this rapid shift. It was hypothesized that alarm pheromones released by guards may cause the adoption of a less permissive acceptance threshold. Here, we tested this hypothesis on five discriminator hives by using a behavioral assay. We used three amounts each of iso-pentyl acetate (IPA) and 2-heptanone (2H), which are the major components of the pheromones from the sting and the mandibular glands, respectively. Biologically relevant levels of chemicals were delivered to the hive entrance platform via an air pump. We found no effect of either IPA or 2H: there was no change in guard acceptance of either nestmate (on average, 91% accepted) or non-nestmate (on average, 30% accepted) under any of the pheromone treatments compared to the pentane control (98% nestmates accepted and 32% non-nestmates accepted). Therefore, we reject the hypothesis that the presence of IPA or 2H causes a rapid shift of guard acceptance threshold.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
MJC is supported by a grant from The Nineveh Charitable Trust.
Boch, R., and Shearer, D. A. 1962. Identification of Geraniol as the active component in Nassanoff pheromone of the honey bee. Nature 194:704–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boch, R., and Shearer, D. A. 1971. Chemical releasers of alarm behaviours in the honey-bee, Apis mellifera. J. Insect Physiol. 17:2277–2285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boch, R., Shearer, D. A., and Stone, B. C. 1962. Identification of iso-amyl acetate as an active component in the sting pheromone of the honey bee. Nature 195:1018–1020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. B., and Free, J. B. 1952. The behaviour of worker honeybees at the hive entrance. Behaviour 4:262–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couvillon, M. J., Robinson, E. J. H., Atkinson, B., Child, L., Dent, K. R., and Ratnieks, F. L. W. 2008. En Garde: Rapid shifts in honey bee (Apis mellifera) guarding behavior is triggered by onslaught of conspecific intruders. An. Behav. 76:225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couvillon, M. J., Roy, G. G. F., and Ratnieks, F. L. W. 2009. Recognition errors by honey bee (Apis mellifera) guards demonstrate overlapping cues in conspecific recognition. J. Apicult. Res. 48:225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, S. G., and Ratnieks, F. L. W. 2000. Adaptive shifts in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) guarding behavior support predictions of the acceptance threshold model. Behav. Ecol. 11:326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Free, J. B. 1987. Pheromones of Social Bees. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Goubault, M., Batchelor, T. P., Linforth, R. S. T., Taylor, A. J., and Hardy, I. C. W. 2006. Volatile emission by contest losers revealed by real-time chemical analysis. Proc. Royal Soc. B 273:2853–2859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maschwitz, U. 1964. Gefahrenalarmstoffe und Gefahrenalarmierung bei sozialen Hymenopteren. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Physiologie 47:596–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar