Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 200–209 | Cite as

Honey Bee Queens Do Not Count Mates to Assess their Mating Success

Article
First Online:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The mating system of honey bees (genus Apis) is extremely polyandrous, where reproductive females (queens) typically mate with 12 or more males (drones) during their mating flight(s). The evolutionary implications for hyperpolyandry have been subject to considerable debate and empirical testing because of the need to understand the proximate mechanisms that drive such extreme mating behavior despite the potential costs. The ability of queens to gauge and adjust their reproductive success is therefore important for selection to act on queen mating number at both the evolutionary (colony-level) and proximate (individual-level) timescales. We observed the mating flight activities of 80 queens in their respective mating nucleus hives each with a modified entrance that restricts flight attempts. We also attached a small weight (0, 16, or 38 mg) onto each queen’s thorax as a means of imposing additional flight costs. We then compared queens that were restricted from taking multiple mating flights to those that started oviposition after a single flight for their mating numbers as quantified by microsatellite analyses of their respective worker offspring. We found that neither additional weight nor restricted mating attempts had any significant effect on the effective mating frequencies of the experimental queens during their single mating flight. This observation suggests that queens are not adjusting their nuptial flight activity according to their precise mating number during their flight. These findings provide insights into the proximate regulation of honey bee queen mating behavior and the fitness consequences of hyperpolyandry at the colony level.

Keywords

Polyandry mating systems honey bee reproduction paternity analysis Apis mellifera 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jennifer Keller, Megan Walz, Jordan Arata, Sam Freeze, Carl Giuffre, Holden Appler, and Ming Huang for their assistance in monitoring the flight behavior of the experimental queens. We also thank Justin Radloff and Megan Walz for assistance with the genetic analyses. Project Apis m generously provided the equipment for the sperm viability analysis. Additional funding was provided by a US Department of Agriculture Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to MSF and a Coordinated Agriculture Project grant from US Department of Agriculture to DRT.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Boomsma JJ, Ratnieks FL (1996) Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 351:947–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins AM, Donoghue AM (1999) Viability assessment of honey bee, Apis mellifera sperm using dual fluorescent staining. Theriogenology 51:1513–1523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Crozier RH, Fjerdingstad EJ (2001) Polyandry in social Hymenoptera - disunity in diversity? Ann Zool Fenn 38:267–285Google Scholar
  4. Delaney DA et al (2011) The physical, insemination, and reproductive quality of honey bee queens (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 42:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferrari TE (2014) Magnets, magnetic field fluctuations and geomagnetic disturbances impair the homing ability of honey bees (Apis mellifera). J Apic Res 53:452–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franck P et al (2000) Evolution of extreme polyandry: an estimate of mating frequency in two African honeybee subspecies, Apis mellifea monticola and A. m. scutellata. Insect Soc 47:364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gary NE (1963) Observations of mating behaviour in the honeybee. J Apic Res 2:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayworth MK et al (2009) Added weights lead to reduced flight behavior and mating success in polyandrous honey bee queens (Apis mellifera). Ethology 115:698–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hernandez-Garcia R et al (2009) Mating frequency in Apis mellifera iberiensis queens. J Apic Res 48:121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes WOH et al (2008) Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science 320:1213–1216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kocher SD et al (2008) Genomic analysis of post-mating changes in the honey bee queen (Apis mellifera). BMC Genomics 9:232CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Kocher SD et al (2009) Queen reproductive state modulates pheromone production and queen-worker interactions in honeybees. Behav Ecol 20:1007–1014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Kocher SD et al (2010) The effects of mating and instrumental insemination on queen honey bee flight behaviour and gene expression. Insect Mol Biol 19:153–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Koeniger G (1976) The influence of the copulation on the beginning of oviposition in the queen honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) Apidologie 7:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koeniger G (1981) In which segment of the mating process of the queen bee does the induction of oviposition occur? Apidologie 12:329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koeniger G (1988) Mating behavior of honey bees. In: Brown CE (ed) Africanized honey bees and bee mites. Wiley, New York, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  17. Koeniger N, Koeniger G (2007) Mating flight duration of Apis mellifera queens: as short as possible, as long as necessary. Apidologie 38:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kraus FB et al (2005) Genetic variance of mating frequency in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Insect Soc 52:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laidlaw HH Jr, Eckert JE (1962) Queen rearing. University of California Press, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  20. Lensky Y, Demter M (1985) Mating flights of the queen honeybee (Apis mellifera) in a subtropical climate. Comp Biochem Physiol 81:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mackensen O (1947) Effect of carbon dioxide on initial oviposition of artificially inseminated and virgin queen bees. J Econ Entomol 40:344–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Neumann P, Moritz RFA (2000) Testing genetic variance hypotheses for the evolution of polyandry in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Insect Soc 47:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielsen R et al (2003) Estimating effective paternity number in social insects and the effective number of alleles in a population. Mol Ecol 12:3157–3164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nino EL et al (2011) Genome-wide analysis of brain transcriptional changes in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) queens exposed to carbon dioxide and physical manipulation. Insect Mol Biol 20:387–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nino EL et al (2013a) Chemical profiles of two pheromone glands are differentially regulated by distinct mating factors in honey bee queens (Apis mellifera L.). PLoS One 8:e78637Google Scholar
  26. Nino EL et al (2013b) Differential effects of insemination volume and substance on reproductive changes in honey bee queens (Apis mellifera L.). Insect Mol Biol 22:233–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nonacs P (1988) Queen number in colonies of social Hymenoptera as a kin-selected adaptation. Evolution 42:566–580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Oldroyd BP, Fewell JH (2007) Genetic diversity promotes homeostasis in insect colonies. Trends Ecol Evol 22:408–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Oldroyd BP et al (1998) Evolution of mating behavior in the genus Apis and an estimate of mating frequency in Apis cerana (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 91:700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Page RE Jr (1980) The evolution of multiple mating behavior by honey bee queens (Apis mellifera). Genetics 96:263–273PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmer KA, Oldroyd BP (2000) Evolution of multiple mating in the genus Apis. Apidologie 31:235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richard F-J et al (2007) Effects of insemination quantity on honey bee queen physiology. PLoS One 2:e980CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts WC (1944) Multiple mating of queen bees proved by progeny and flight tests. Gleanings in Bee Culture 72:255–260Google Scholar
  34. Rueppell O et al (2008) Variance-based selection may explain general mating patterns in social insects. Biol Lett 4:270–273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruttner F (1956) The mating of the honeybee. Bee World 37:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schluns H et al (2005) Multiple nuptial flights, sperm transfer and the evolution of extreme polyandry in honeybee queens. Anim Behav 70:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sherman PW et al (1988) Parasites, pathogens, and polyandry in social Hymenoptera. Am Nat 131:602–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simone-Finstrom M et al (2016) Genetic diversity confers colony-level benefits due to individual immunity. Biol Lett 12Google Scholar
  39. Strassmann JE (2001) The rarity of multiple mating by females in the social Hymenoptera. Insect Soc 48:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tarpy DR, Page RE Jr (2000) No behavioral control over mating frequency in queen honey bees (Apis mellifera L.): Implications for the evolution of extreme polyandry. Am Nat 155:820–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Tarpy DR et al (2004) A scientific note on the revised estimates of effective paternity frequency in Apis. Insect Soc 51:203–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tarpy DR et al (2011) Experimentally induced variation in the physical reproductive potential and mating success in honey bee queens. Insect Soc 58:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tarpy DR et al (2015) Mating frequencies of honey bee queens (Apis mellifera L.) in a population of feral colonies in the northeastern United States. PLoS One 10:e0118734Google Scholar
  44. Walsh PS et al (1991) Chelex(r) 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. BioTechniques 10:506–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang JL (2004) Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics 166:1963–1979CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Woyke J (1962) Natural and artificial insemination of queen honeybees. Bee World 43:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woyke J (2011) The mating sign of queen bees originates from two drones and the process of multiple mating in honey bees. J Apic Res 50:272–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2001) Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim Behav 61:1051–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology & Plant Pathology and W. M. Keck Center for Behavioral BiologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.USDA-ARS, Honey Bee Breeding, Genetics, and Physiology ResearchBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations