BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter L Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:28:17 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
> what observations support the hypothesis that smoke immobilizes bees


The present work shows that even without any manipulation of the colony the administration of smoke reduces foraging activity for a time, as well as having the desired effect of reducing the number of guard bees.

The present paper reports on: (1) the influence of smoke on the number of guards at the colony entrance; (2) the influence of smoke on the number of departing foragers; (3) the effect of smoke on the number of guards aroused by isopentyl acetate, an alarm substance (Boch, Shearer & Stone, 1962).

When entrances to honeybee colonies were smoked, the number of guards at the entrance was reduced for a period of 10 minutes or more. The number of departing foragers was similarly affected. Smoke reduced the number of guards that would otherwise have been recruited to the entrance by the alarm pheromone, isopentyl acetate.


DAVID C. NEWTON. BEHAVIOURAL RESPONSE OF HONEYBEES TO COLONY DISTURBANCE BY SMOKE. ll. GUARDS AND FORAGERS. Journal of Apicultural Research 8(2) : 79-82 (1969)

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2