Tetragonisca guard bees interpret expanding and contracting patterns as unintended displacement in space

• Published in: Journal of Comparative Physiology Vol. 181; no. 3; pp. 257 - 265
• Main Authors: Kelber, A, Zeil, J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin Springer Nature B.V 01.09.1997
• Subjects: Airspeed; Bees; Contraction; Flight; Guards; Hovering; Insects; Spinning; Velocity; Visual control; Visual field; Visual fields
• ISSN: 0340-7594; 1432-1351
• DOI: 10.1007/s003590050112

Guard bees of the stingless bee Tetragonisca angustula (Apidae: Meliponinae) hover in stable positions in front of the nest to protect the flight corridor leading to the nest entrance against insect intruders. To unravel the visual control of station keeping, we exposed these hovering guards to expanding and contracting patterns at the nest front. The bees fly away from an expanding pattern and towards the centre of a contracting pattern along a line connecting their initial position and the centre of expansion regardless of where in the visual field they view the pattern. The response of bees to a spinning radial pattern is different: they fly parallel to the pattern, up and down or forward and backward depending on whether they initially hover to the side, above or below the centre of rotation. The bees respond to horizontal and to vertical expansion and contraction. They also adjust their distance relative to a rotating spiral which produces a realistic flow field and thus allowed us to test to what extent the bees minimize image motion speed. We find that guard bees indeed move in the appropriate direction to minimize the image motion speed they experience. A comparison of bees hovering at different distances from the nestfront at the onset of pattern motion and experiencing very different image velocities shows that the dynamics of the reaction is quite uniform. At the pattern velocities tested, we did not find evidence that guard bees use image motion to control their flight speed. The bees' response rather suggests that the underlying mechanism might be insensitive to the size of motion vectors.