Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Swarm-intelligent foraging in honeybees: benefits and costs of task-partitioning and environmental fluctuations

  • Swam Intelligence
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For honeybee colonies, it is crucial to collect nectar in an efficient way. Empiric experiments showed that the process of decision making, which allows the colony to select the optimal nectar source, is based on individual decisions. These decisions are made by returning nectar foragers, which alter their dancing behaviours based on the nectar source’s quality and based on the experienced search time for a receiver bee. Nectar receivers, which represent a shared limited resource for foragers, can modulate the foraging decisions performed by the colony. We investigated the interplay between foragers and receivers by using a multi-agent simulation. Therefore, we implemented agents which are capable of a limited set of behaviours and which spend energy according to their behaviour. In simulation experiments, we tested colonies with various receiver-to-forager ratios and measured colony-level results like the emerging foraging patterns and the colony’s net honey gain. We show that the number of receivers prominently regulates the foraging workforce. All tested environmental fluctuations are predicted to cause energetic costs for the colony. Task-partitioning additionally influences the colony’s decision-making concerning the question whether or not the colony sticks to a nectar source after environmental fluctuations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sumpter DJT, Pratt SC (2003) A modeling framework for understanding social insect foraging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol (53):131–144

  2. Bartholdi JJ, Seeley TD, Tovey C, Vate JV (1992) The pattern and effectiveness of forager allocation among flower patches in honey bee colonies. J Theor Biol 160:23–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Seeley TD, Camazine S, Sneyd J (1991) Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28(4):277–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cox MD, Myerscough MR (2003) A flexible model of foraging by a honey bee colony: the effects of individual behaviour on foraging success. J Theor Biol 223:179–197

    Google Scholar 

  5. de Vries H, Biesmeijer JC (2002) Self-organization in collective honeybee foraging: emergence of symmetry breaking, cross inhibition and equal harvest-rate distribution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51(6):557–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de Vries H, Biesmeijer JC (1998) Modelling collective foraging by means of individual behaviour rules in honey-bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:109–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson C, Ratnieks FLW (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies. I. Effect of colony size on queueing delay and colony ergonomic efficiency. Am Nat 154:521–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ratnieks FLW, Anderson C (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies II: use of queueing delay information in recruitment. Am Nat 154(5): 536–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. von Frisch K (1965) Tanzsprache und Orientierung der Bienen. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  10. Seeley TD (1992) The tremble dance of the honey bee: message and meanings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:375–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Seeley TD, Camazine S, Sneyd J (1991) Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28(4):277–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grüter C, Farina WM (2009) The honeybee waggle dance: can we follow the steps? Trends Ecol Evol 24(5):242–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Seeley TD (1994) Honey bee foragers as sensory units of their colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:51–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A, Houston AI (1985) Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crop. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson BR (2003) Organization of work in the honeybee: a compromise between division of labour and behavioural flexibility. Proc Royal Soc Lond B 270(1511):147–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Seeley TD (1982) Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:287–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson BR (2002) Reallocation of labor in honeybee colonies during heat stress: the relative roles of task switching and the activation of reserve labor. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:188–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmickl T, Crailsheim K Hopomo (2007) A model of honeybee intracolonial population dynamics and resource management. Ecol Model 204(1–2): 219–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2001) Cannibalism and early capping: strategy of honeybee colonies in times of experimental pollen shortages. J Comp Physiol A 187(7):541–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Seeley TD (1992) The tremble dance of the honey bee: message and meanings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:375–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Seeley TD (1989) Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colonys nutritional status. Behav Ecol and Sociobiol 24:181–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmickl T, Thenius R, Crailsheim K (2005) Simulating swarm intelligence in honeybees: foraging in differently fluctuating environments. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO) 2005, Washington, DC, pp 273–274

  23. Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2004) Costs of environmental fluctuations and benefits of dynamic decentralized foraging decisions in honey bees. Adapt Behav Anim Anim Software Agents Rob Adapt Syst 12:263–277

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thenius R, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2006) Economic optimisation in honeybees: adaptive behaviour of a superorganism. In: Nolfi S, Baldassarre G, Calabretta R, Hallam JCT, Marocco D, Meyer JA, Miglino O, Parisi D (eds) From animals to animats 9: 9th international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior, SAB 2006. Volume 4095 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI). Springer, Berlin, pp 725–737

  25. Russell SJ, Norvig P (1995) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Bonabeau E, Dorigo M, Theraulaz G (1999) Swarm intelligence: from natural to artificial systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Thenius R, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2005) The dance or work problem: why do not all honeybees dance with maximum intensity. Lect Notes Artif Intell 3690:246–255

    Google Scholar 

  28. Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honey bee colonies. Havard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Huang M, Seeley TD (2003) Multiple unloadings by nectar foragers in honey bees: a matter of information improvement or crop fullness?. Insectes Sociaux 50:330–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Castro L (2007) Fundamentals of natural computing: an overview. Phys Life Rev 4(1):1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Anderson C (1998) Simulation of the feedbacks and regulation of recruitment dancing in honey bees. Adv Compl Syst 1:267–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gregson A, Hart A, Holcombe M, Ratnieks F (2003) Partial nectar loads as a cause of multiple nectar transfer in the honey bee (apis mellifera): a simulation model. J Theor Biol 222(1): 1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) Analysing honeybees’ division of labour in broodcare by a multi-agent model. In: Bullock S, Noble J, Watson R, Bedau MA (eds) Artificial life XI: proceedings of the eleventh international conference on the simulation and synthesis of living systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 529–536

  34. Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) An individual-based model of task selection in honeybees. In: Goebel R, Siekmann J, Wahlster W (eds) From animals to animats 10. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 5040, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 383–392

  35. Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) Taskselsim: a model of the self-organization of the division of labour in honeybees. Math Comput Model Dyn Syst 14:101–125

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Thenius R, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) Optimisation of a honeybee-colony’s energetics via social learning based on queuing delays. Connect Sci 20(2):193–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wedde HF, Farooq M, Pannenbaecker T, Vogel B, Mueller C, Meth J, Jeruschkat R (2005) Beeadhoc: an energy efficient routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks inspired by bee behavior. In: GECCO ’05: proceedings of the 2005 conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, New York, pp 153–160

  38. Wedde HF, Farooq M, Zhang Y (2004) Beehive: An efficient fault-tolerant routing algorithm inspired by honey bee behavior. In: Lecture notes in computer science. Number 3172, Springer, Berlin, pp 83–94

  39. Tovey C (2004) The honey bee algorithm: a biological inspired approach to internet server optimization. Engineering Enterprise, Spring, pp 13–15

  40. Pham D, Ghanbarzadeh A, Koc E, Otri S, Rahim S, Zaidi M (2006) The bees algorithm, a novel tool for complex optimisation problems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international virtual conference on intelligent production machines and systems (IPROMS 2006), Elsevier, pp 454–459

  41. Dorigo M, Stützle T (2004) Ant colony optimization (Bradford Books). The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Dorigo M, Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G (2000) Ant algorithms and stigmergy. Future Gener Comput Syst 16(9):851–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bonabeau E, Henaux F, Guérin S, Snyers D, Kuntz P, Theraulaz G (January 1998) Routing in telecommunications networks with “smart” ant-like agents. Working papers 98-01-003, Santa Fe Institute

  44. Sugawara K, Kazama T, Watanabe T (2004) Foraging behavior of interacting robots with virtual pheromone. In: Proceedings of 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, pp 3074–3079

  45. Krieger MJB, Billeter JB (2000) The call of duty: self organised task allocation in a population of up to twelve mobile robots. Rob Auton Syst 30:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Payton D, Daily M, Estowski R, Howard M, Lee C (2001) Pheromone robotics. Auton Rob 11(3):319–324

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Payton D, Estkowski R, Howrad M (2005) Pheromonic robotics and the logic of virtual pheromones. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3342:45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Garnier S, Jost C, Jeanson R, Gautrais J, Asadpour M, Caprari G, Theraulaz G (2005) Aggregation behaviour as a source of collective decision in a group of cockroach-like-robots. In: Capcarrere M (ed) Advances in artificial life: 8th European conference, ECAL 2005. Vol 3630 of LNAI. Springer, Berlin, pp 169–178

  49. Schmickl T, Thenius R, Möslinger C, Radspieler G, Kernbach S, Crailsheim K (2008) Get in touch: cooperative decision making based on robot-to-robot collisions. Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst 18(1):133–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hamann H, Wörn H, Crailsheim K, Schmickl T (2008) Spatial macroscopic models of a bio-inspired robotic swarm algorithm. In: IEEE/RSJ 2008 international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS’08). IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, pp 1415–1420

  51. Schmickl T, Möslinger C, Thenius R, Crailsheim K (2007) Bio-inspired navigation of autonomous robots in heterogenous environments. Int J Factory Autom Rob Soft Comput 3:164–170

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schmickl T, Möslinger C, Thenius R, Crailsheim K (2007) Individual adaptation allows collective path-finding in a robotic swarm. Int J Factory Autom Rob Soft Comput 4:102–108

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2008) Trophallaxis within a robotic swarm: bio-inspired communication among robots in a swarm. Auton Rob 25:171–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article was supported by the following grants: EU IST-FET-open project (IP) I-Swarm, no. 507006. EU IST-FET project SYMBRION, no. 216342. EU ICT project REPLICATOR, no. 216240. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) research grants P15961-B06 and P19478-B16.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Artificial Life Lab of the Department of Zoology, University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 2, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Thomas Schmickl, Ronald Thenius & Karl Crailsheim

Authors
  1. Thomas Schmickl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald Thenius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karl Crailsheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Schmickl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmickl, T., Thenius, R. & Crailsheim, K. Swarm-intelligent foraging in honeybees: benefits and costs of task-partitioning and environmental fluctuations. Neural Comput & Applic 21, 251–268 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-010-0357-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-010-0357-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation