Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34030690›Full record

ArticleBMC biology2021

Honeybee communication during collective defence is shaped by predation.

Andrea López-Incera, Morgane Nouvian, Katja Ried, Thomas Müller, Hans J Briegel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Conversion of social organization in fire ants induced by few colony members: Unmasking indirect genetic effects.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Division of labour in colony defence in a clonal ant.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Division of labour during honeybee colony defence: poetic and scientific views.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Honey Bee Colonies (Insects · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. From inter-group conflict to inter-group cooperation: insights from social insects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea López-Incera *Institute for Theoretical Physics, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Morgane Nouvian *Department of Biology, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz, 78457, Germany. morgane.nouvian@uni-konstanz.de.ORCID 0000-0003-4882-2372
Katja RiedInstitute for Theoretical Physics, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
Thomas MüllerDepartment of Philosophy, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz, 78457, Germany.
Hans J BriegelInstitute for Theoretical Physics, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
University of Konstanz · DEUniversität Innsbruck · AT

Funding

Austrian Science Fund SFB BeyondC F7102Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 414260764Ministerium f?r Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-W?rttemberg 33-7533-30-10/41/1University of Konstanz Bluesky project
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial insect colonies routinely face large vertebrate predators, against which they need to mount a collective defence. To do so, honeybees use an alarm pheromone that recruits nearby bees into mass stinging of the perceived threat. This alarm pheromone is carried directly on the stinger; hence, its concentration builds up during the course of the attack. We investigate how bees react to different alarm pheromone concentrations and how this evolved response pattern leads to better coordination at the group level.

resultsWe first present a dose-response curve to the alarm pheromone, obtained experimentally. This data reveals two phases in the bees' response: initially, bees become more likely to sting as the alarm pheromone concentration increases, but aggressiveness drops back when very high concentrations are reached. Second, we apply Projective Simulation to model each bee as an artificial learning agent that relies on the pheromone concentration to decide whether to sting or not. Individuals are rewarded based on the collective performance, thus emulating natural selection in these complex societies. By also modelling predators in a detailed way, we are able to identify the main selection pressures that shaped the response pattern observed experimentally. In particular, the likelihood to sting in the absence of alarm pheromone (starting point of the dose-response curve) is inversely related to the rate of false alarms, such that bees in environments with low predator density are less likely to waste efforts responding to irrelevant stimuli. This is compensated for by a steep increase in aggressiveness when the alarm pheromone concentration starts rising. The later decay in aggressiveness may be explained as a curbing mechanism preventing worker loss.

conclusionsOur work provides a detailed understanding of alarm pheromone responses in honeybees and sheds light on the selection pressures that brought them about. In addition, it establishes our approach as a powerful tool to explore how selection based on a collective outcome shapes individual responses, which remains a challenging issue in the field of evolutionary biology.

Indexed as

BeesPredatory BehaviorAggressionAnimal CommunicationAnimalsCommunicationInsectaPheromonesPheromonesAlarm pheromoneArtificial intelligenceCollective behaviourEvolutionHoneybee

Identifiers

PMID34030690
PMCPMC8147350
OpenAlexW3165147036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.