Nektar sıklığının Türkiye'de bulunan farklı bal arısı ırklarının çiçek tercihleri üzerindeki etkileri

We compared the European honeybee races Apis mellifera armeniaca, A.m. caucasica, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca. These subspecies are endemic to very different habitats. Additionally, they are exposed to very different levels of predation. A.m. caucasica exists where honeybee predators typically are rare, while the remaining subspecies have ranges that coincide with areas where honeybee predators are abundant. Foraging decisions of workers visiting artificial flower patches containing blue, white, and yellow flowers were recorded. We tested whether foragers responded to differences in rewarding flower frequency among flower color morphs. Division of labor occurred among foragers of each race; some bees frequented yellow flowers while other bees from the same hive visited blue and white flowers. A.m. caucasica foragers ignored differences in reward frequency among flower colors. Even bees that frequented blue and white flowers did not base flower choice on reward frequency differences between just these two color morphs. In contrast, A.m. armeniaca, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca, however, did respond to differences in reward frequencies, tending to avoid the less frequently rewarding flower color morph. A.m. armeniaca forager division of labor (foragers committed to yellow or to blue and white flowers) was dominant to energy maximization. The reverse was true for A.m. cypria.

Reward frequency: Effects on flower choices made by differents honeybee races in Turkey

We compared the European honeybee races Apis mellifera armeniaca, A.m. caucasica, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca. These subspecies are endemic to very different habitats. Additionally, they are exposed to very different levels of predation. A.m. caucasica exists where honeybee predators typically are rare, while the remaining subspecies have ranges that coincide with areas where honeybee predators are abundant. Foraging decisions of workers visiting artificial flower patches containing blue, white, and yellow flowers were recorded. We tested whether foragers responded to differences in rewarding flower frequency among flower color morphs. Division of labor occurred among foragers of each race; some bees frequented yellow flowers while other bees from the same hive visited blue and white flowers. A.m. caucasica foragers ignored differences in reward frequency among flower colors. Even bees that frequented blue and white flowers did not base flower choice on reward frequency differences between just these two color morphs. In contrast, A.m. armeniaca, A.m. cypria, and A.m. syriaca, however, did respond to differences in reward frequencies, tending to avoid the less frequently rewarding flower color morph. A.m. armeniaca forager division of labor (foragers committed to yellow or to blue and white flowers) was dominant to energy maximization. The reverse was true for A.m. cypria.

___

  • 1. Ruttner, F. Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honeybees. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1988.
  • 2. Michener, C.D. The Social Behavior of the Bee: A Comparative Study. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, USA, 1974.
  • 3. Deodiker, G.B. In: Recent Research in Geology (ed. KB Power) Vol. 4. Hindustan, Delhi, India, 1978.
  • 4. Smith, D.R. Diversity in the Genus Apis. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, USA, 1991.
  • 5. Maeterlink, M. La Vie de Abeilles. Paris: Bibliotheque-Champentier, Fasquelle Editeurs, 1901.
  • 6. Ribbands, C.R. The Behavior and Social Life of Honeybees. London: Bee Research Association Limited, 1953.
  • 7. Frisch, K. von. Tranzsprache und Orientierung der Bienen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1965.
  • 8. Moezel, P.G., Delfs Van der, J.C., Pate, J.S., Loneragen, W.A., Bell, D.T. Pollen collection by honey bees in shrublands of the northern sandplains of Western Australia. J. Apic. Res. 26, 224- 232, 1987.
  • 9. Free, J.B. Insect Pollination of Crops. Academic Press, London, 1993.
  • 10. Wells, H., Wells, P.H., and Smith, D.M. Honeybee response to reward size and colour in an artificial flower patch. J. Apic. Res. 20, 172-179, 1981.
  • 11. Wells, H., Wells, P.H., and Smith, D.M. Ethological isolation of plants. 1. Colour selection by honeybees. J. Apic. Res. 22, 33-44, 1983.
  • 12. Waser, N.M. The adaptive nature of floral traits: ideas and evidence. In: Pollination Biology (Ed. by Real, L.). New York: Academic Press, 1983.
  • 13. Chittka, L., Thomson, J.D., and Waser, N.M. Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 86, 361-377, 1999.
  • 14. Hill, P.S., Wells, P.H., and Wells, H. Spontaneous flower constancy and learning in honey bees as a function of colour. Anim. Behav. 54, 615-627, 1997.
  • 15. Wells, H. and Wells, P.H. Honey bee foraging ecology: optimal diet, minimal uncertainty or individual constancy. J. Anim. Ecol. 52, 829-836, 1983.
  • 16. Çakmak, I, and Wells, H. Honey bee forager individual constancy: innate or learned? BeeScience 3, 165-173, 1995.
  • 17. Ohyama, T., Couvillon, P.A., and Bitterman, M.E. Perseveration in the color choices of honeybees. J. Insect Behav. 8, 409-415, 1995.
  • 18. Wells, H. and Wells, P.H. Optimal diet, minimal uncertainty and individual constancy in the foraging of honeybees. J. Anim. Ecol. 55, 881-891, 1986.
  • 19. Wells, H., Hill, P.S., and Wells, P.H. Nectivore foraging ecology: rewards differing in sugar types. Ecol. Entomol. 17, 280-288, 1992.
  • 20. Banschbach, V.S. and Waddington, K.D. Risk sensitive foraging in honeybees: no consensus among individuals and no effect of colony honey stores. Anim. Behav. 47, 933-941, 1994.
  • 21. Harder, L.D. and Real, L.A. Why are bumble bees risk averse? Ecology 68, 309-315, 1987.
  • 22. Cartar, R.V. and Dill, L.M. Why are bumble bees risk-sensitive foragers? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 121-127, 1990.
  • 23. Cartar, R.V. Colony energy requirements affect response to predation risks in foraging bumblebees. Ethology 87, 90-96, 1991.
  • 24. Awetisyan, G.A. Apiculture. Apimondia Publishing House, Bucharest, Romania, 1978.
  • 25. Adam, B. In Search of the Best Strains of Bees. Dadant Sons, Hamilton, Illinois, USA, 1983.
  • 26. Kalman, C.H. Our formerly very aggressive bee. Proceed. Inter. Beekeeping Congress 24, 306-307, 1973.
  • 27. Fall, F. and Lehman, A. JMP IN, SAS Institute, Inc. Ducksberry Press, Belmont, California, USA, 1996.
  • 28. Marden, J.H. and Waddington, K.D. Floral choices by honeybees in relation to the relative distances to flowers. Physiol. Entomol. 6, 431-435, 1981.
  • 29. Buchanan, G.M. and Bitterman, M.E. Learning in honeybees as a function of amount of reward: tests of the equal-asymptote assumption. Anim. Learn. Behav. 17, 475-480, 1989.
  • 30. Greggors, U. and Menzel, R. Memory dynamics and foraging strategies of honeybees. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32, 17-29, 1993.
  • 31. Heinrich, B. The foraging specialization of bumble bees. Ecol. Monog. 46, 105-128, 1976.
  • 32. Wells, H., and Rathore, R.S. Foraging ecology of the Asian hive bee, Apis cerena indica. J. Apic. Res. 33, 219-230, 1994.
  • 33. Gilliam, J.F. and Fraser, D.F. Habitat selection under predation hazard: a test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology 68, 1856-1862, 1987.
  • 34. Özbek, H. TÜrkiye için önemli bir balarısı (Apis mellifera L.) avcı böceği Philanthus triangulum abdelkader Lep. (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). Atatürk Üniv. Fen Fak. Dergisi 13, 47-54, 1982.
  • 35. Sharma, O.P. and Raj, D. Ecological studies on predatory wasps attacking Italian honeybee, Apis mellifera, in Kangra shivaliks. Indian J. Ecol. 15:168-171, 1988.
  • 36. De Jong, D.D. Insects: Hymenoptera (Ants, wasps, and bees). in Morse, R.A. and Novogrodzki, R., editors. Honeybee Pests, Predators and Diseases. Second ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA, pp. 135-176, 1990.
  • 37. Kumar, R., Kuman, N.R., and Bhalla, O.P. A comparative study on the response of Apis species to predation by Vespa species. Proceed. Inter. Conference on Asian Honey Bees and Mites 1, 238- 242, 1992.
  • 38. Rissing S.W. Foraging specializations of individual seed-harvesting ants. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9, 149-152, 1981.
  • 39. Schatz, B., Lachaud, J., and Beugnon, G. Spatial fidelity and individual foraging specializations in the neotropical ponerine ant, Ectatomma ruidum Roger (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Sociobiol. 26, 269-282, 1995.
  • 40. Brown, J.S. Patch use under predation risk: I. Models and predictions. Ann. Zool. Fennici 29, 301-309, 1992.
  • 41. Real, L.A. and Caraco, T. Risk and foraging in stochastic environments: theory and evidence. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 371-390, 1986.
  • 42. Cartar, R.V. and Dill, L.M. Costs of energy shortfall for bumble bee colonies: predation, social parasitism, and brood development. Can. Entomol. 123, 283-293, 1991.
  • 43. Simonthomas, R.T. and Simonthomas, A.M.J. Philanthus triangulum and its recent eruption as a predator of honeybees in an Egyptian oasis. Bee World 61, 97-107, 1980.
  • 44. Fraser, H.M. Beekeeping in Antiquity. University of London Press, London, U.K, 1931.
  • 45. Nonacs, P. and Dill, L.M. Foraging response of the ant Lasius pallitarsis to food sources with associated mortality risk. Insect. Soc. 35, 293-303, 1988.
  • 46. Nonacs, P. and Dill, L.M. Mortality risk vs. food quality trade off in a common currency: ant patch preference. Ecology 71, 1886- 1892, 1990.
  • 47. Feener, D.H. and Brown, B.V. Reduced foraging of the tropical fire ant, Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in the presence of parasitic phorid flies, Pseudacteon spp. (Diptera: Phoridae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 85, 80-84, 1992.