An official website of the United States government
As honeybees build their nests in preexisting tree cavities, they must deal with the presence of geometric constraints, resulting in nonregular hexagons and topological defects in the comb. In this work, we study how bees adapt to their environment in order to regulate the comb structure. Specifically, we identify the irregularities in honeycomb structure in the presence of various geometric frustrations. We 3D-print experimental frames with a variety of constraints imposed on the imprinted foundations. The combs constructed by the bees show clear evidence of recurring patterns in response to specific geometric frustrations on these starter frames. Furthermore, using an experimental-modeling framework, we demonstrate that these patterns can be successfully modeled and replicated through a simulated annealing process, in which the minimized potential is a variation of the Lennard-Jones potential that considers only first-neighbor interactions according to a Delaunay triangulation. Our simulation results not only confirm the connection between honeycomb structures and other crystal systems such as graphene, but also show that irregularities in the honeycomb structure can be explained as the result of analogous interactions between cells and their immediate surroundings, leading to emergent global order. Additionally, our computational model can be used as a first step to describe specific strategies that bees use to effectively solve geometric mismatches while minimizing cost of comb building.
more »
« less
Imperfect comb construction reveals the architectural abilities of honeybees
Honeybees are renowned for their perfectly hexagonal honeycomb, hailed as the pinnacle of biological architecture for its ability to maximize storage area while minimizing building material. However, in natural nests, workers must regularly transition between different cell sizes, merge inconsistent combs, and optimize construction in constrained geometries. These spatial obstacles pose challenges to workers building perfect hexagons, but it is unknown to what extent workers act as architects versus simple automatons during these irregular building scenarios. Using automated image analysis to extract the irregularities in natural comb building, we show that some building configurations are more difficult for the bees than others, and that workers overcome these challenges using a combination of building techniques, such as: intermediate-sized cells, regular motifs of irregular shapes, and gradual modifications of cell tilt. Remarkably, by anticipating these building challenges, workers achieve high-quality merges using limited local sensing, on par with analytical models that require global optimization. Unlike automatons building perfectly replicated hexagons, these building irregularities showcase the active role that workers take in shaping their nest and the true architectural abilities of honeybees.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10280102
- Publisher / Repository:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Volume:
- 118
- Issue:
- 31
- ISSN:
- 0027-8424
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- Article No. e2103605118
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Khila, Abderrahman (Ed.)The hexagonal cells built by honey bees and social wasps are an example of adaptive architecture; hexagons minimize material use, while maximizing storage space and structural stability. Hexagon building evolved independently in the bees and wasps, but in some species of both groups, the hexagonal cells are size dimorphic—small worker cells and large reproductive cells—which forces the builders to join differently sized hexagons together. This inherent tiling problem creates a unique opportunity to investigate how similar architectural challenges are solved across independent evolutionary origins. We investigated how 5 honey bee and 5 wasp species solved this problem by extracting per-cell metrics from 22,745 cells. Here, we show that all species used the same building techniques: intermediate-sized cells and pairs of non-hexagonal cells, which increase in frequency with increasing size dimorphism. We then derive a simple geometric model that explains and predicts the observed pairing of non-hexagonal cells and their rate of occurrence. Our results show that despite different building materials, comb configurations, and 179 million years of independent evolution, honey bees and social wasps have converged on the same solutions for the same architectural problems, thereby revealing fundamental building properties and evolutionary convergence in construction behavior.more » « less
-
Abstract Most pesticide research has focussed on risk to managed honeybees, but other managed and wild bees are also exposed to pesticides. Critically, we know little about the magnitude and sources of risk to honeybees compared with other bees during crop pollination.To compare pesticide exposure and risk across wild and managed bees, we sampled the main bee groups present during bloom in 20 apple orchards, including managed honeybees (Apis mellifera), managed bumblebee workers (Bombus impatiens), wild mining bees (Andrenaspp. andAndrena [Melandrena]spp.), bumblebee foundress queens (Bombus impatiens) and eastern carpenter bees (Xylocopa virginica). We screened all bees for 92 pesticides and computed a Risk Quotient using available toxicity data (honeybee LD50s), adjusting for differences in toxicity known to scale with body mass. To gain insight into exposure origin, we compared residues in bees to those in focal orchard apple and dandelion flowers.Nearly all bee samples contained pesticides (95%), with the average contamination level ranging from 7.1 ± 2.8 parts per billion (ppb) inB. impatiensworkers to 388.4 ± 146.2 ppb inAndrena. Exposure profiles were similar for all bees exceptA. mellifera, whose unique exposure profile included high levels of the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam.All bee groups except wildB. impatiensqueens had at least one sample exceeding a US Environmental Protection Agency or European Food Safety Authority exposure level of concern.Apis melliferaexperienced significantly greater risk than other bee groups, with 63% and 81% of samples exceeding an acute or chronic exposure level of concern, respectively. Risk to honeybees was driven primarily by high thiamethoxam levels not found in focal orchard flowers and likely originating outside the orchard.Synthesis and applications: We find that pesticide exposure and risk differ between honeybees and other managed and wild bees during apple pollination. Furthermore, pesticide exposure is a landscape‐scale phenomenon and therefore measures to reduce exposure must consider the surroundings beyond focal farms. Limiting orchard sprays, while reducing on‐farm exposures, will not protect far‐foraging bees from off‐farm exposures such as thiamethoxam, which we hypothesize is coming from nearby seed‐treated corn fields planted during apple bloom.more » « less
-
Form follows function throughout the development of an organism. This principle should apply beyond the organism to the nests they build, but empirical studies are lacking. Honeybees provide a uniquely suited system to study nest form and function throughout development because we can image the three-dimensional structure repeatedly and non-destructively. Here, we tracked nest-wide comb growth in six colonies over 45 days (control colonies) and found that colonies have a stereotypical process of development that maintains a spheroid nest shape. To experimentally test if nest structure is important for colony function, we shuffled the nests of an additional six colonies, weekly rearranging the comb positions and orientations (shuffled colonies). Surprisingly, we found no differences between control and shuffled colonies in multiple colony performance metrics—worker population, comb area, hive weight and nest temperature. However, using predictive modelling to examine how workers allocate comb to expand their nests, we show that shuffled colonies compensate for these disruptions by accounting for the three-dimensional structure to reconnect their nest. This suggests that nest architecture is more flexible than previously thought, and that superorganisms have mechanisms to compensate for drastic architectural perturbations and maintain colony function.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)If you live in an apartment or a house, you will notice that your home has different rooms separated by walls. A plant is just like your home, except there are many small rooms, called cells. Plant cells, like rooms, are also separated by cell walls. Cell walls are unique and are not found in animal cells. In a building, if you want to turn one large room into two small rooms, you build a new wall to divide it. This is similar to how a plant cell divides into two cells during cell division. To build a wall in a building, you need to employ construction workers, design the building plan, buy building materials, and finally assembly the wall. How does the plant cell take care of these different jobs? This article explains how the cell wall is built in a plant cell during cell division.more » « less
