Description
The living world is replete with easily observed structural adaptations (e.g. teeth, claws, and stingers), but behavioral adaptations are no less impressive. Conspecific aggression can be defined as any harmful action directed by one animal at another of the same

The living world is replete with easily observed structural adaptations (e.g. teeth, claws, and stingers), but behavioral adaptations are no less impressive. Conspecific aggression can be defined as any harmful action directed by one animal at another of the same species. Because it is a potentially risky and costly behavior, aggression should be elicited only under optimal conditions. In honeybees, nestmate recognition is considered the driving factor determining whether colony guards will aggress against other honeybees attempting to gain entry to the colony. Models and empirical research support the conclusion that nestmate recognition should be favored over direct kin recognition. Thus, bees tend to use environmentally mediated cues associated with their colonies (e.g. colony odors) to recognize nestmates. The framework of nestmate recognition suggests that non-nestmates should always be aggressed against while nestmates should always be accepted. However, aggression towards nestmates and acceptance of non-nestmates are seen in a wide variety of eusocial insects, including honeybees. These are typically classified as rejection errors and acceptance errors, respectively. As such, they can be explained using signal detection theory and optimal acceptance threshold models, which postulate that recognition errors are inevitable if there is overlap in the cues used to distinguish “desirables” (fitness-enhancing) from “undesirables” (fitness-decrementing) conspecifics. In the context of social insects desirables are presumed to be nestmates and undesirables are presumed to be non-nestmates. I propose that honeybees may make more refined decisions concerning what conspecifics are desirable and undesirable, accounting for at least some of the phenomena previously reported as recognition errors. Some “errors” may be the result of guard bees responding to cues associated with threats and benefits beyond nestmate identity. I show that less threatening neighbors receive less aggression than highly threatening strangers. I show that well-fed colonies exhibit less aggression and that bees from well-fed colonies receive less aggression. I provide evidence that honeybees may decrease aggression towards nestmates and non-nestmate not involved in robbing while increasing aggression towards non-nestmate from a robber colony. Lastly, I show that pollen bearing foragers, regardless of nestmate identity, receive little to no aggression compared to non-pollen bearing foragers.
Reuse Permissions
  • Downloads
    PDF (5.5 MB)

    Details

    Title
    • Conspecific Aggression in Apis Melifera: Reconsidering What Are “Desirable” and “Undesirable” Conspecifics
    Contributors
    Date Created
    2021
    Resource Type
  • Text
  • Collections this item is in
    Note
    • Partial requirement for: Ph.D., Arizona State University, 2021
    • Field of study: Biology

    Machine-readable links