ArticleBMC biology2021
Honeybee communication during collective defence is shaped by predation.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Establishment and Validation of a CUMS Model for Depression-like Behavior in Honeybees: A Tool for Pollinator Stress Research.Insects · 2026Article
- Organic Acid Supplementation in Worker Honeybees (Insects · 2025Review
- Neurogenomic and behavioral principles shape freezing dynamics and synergistic performance in Drosophila melanogaster.Nature communications · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Division of labour in colony defence in a clonal ant.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Division of labour during honeybee colony defence: poetic and scientific views.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Consistency and individuality of honeybee stinging behaviour across time and social contexts.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Article
- Harnessing the power of bee venom for therapeutic and regenerative medical applications: an updated review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Honey Bee Colonies (Insects · 2023Article
- Geosmin suppresses defensive behaviour and elicits unusual neural responses in honey bees.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- How a Minimal Learning Agent can Infer the Existence of Unobserved Variables in a Complex Environment.Minds and machines · 2023Article
- Phenotypic and genetic characterization of AfricanizedFrontiers in insect science · 2023Article
- Extracting individual characteristics from population data reveals a negative social effect during honeybee defence.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- From inter-group conflict to inter-group cooperation: insights from social insects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.