Fig. 4: The honeybee foraging model fitted to data from 20 hives.
From: Foraging distance distributions reveal how honeybee waggle dance recruitment varies with landscape
a Location of study hives in South East England, shaded area in the main plot indicates Greater London. For 16 hives the collective foraging model provided best explanation (circles), for 4 hives the individual search model provided the best explanation (triangles) as indicated by lowest AIC score, and for one hive (square) neither model gave a good fit. Locations of hives that provided data for subsequent panels indicated by c and d. b Distribution of goodness of fit confidence values for each model fit to waggle run durations from each site. The P-value is derived from a bootstrapped two-sided KS test comparing the fitted model predictions to the empirical data, the red dashed line marks the significance threshold of 0.05. The number of data points used for each site is given in Supplementary Table 1. c Representative example of the dance duration distribution for a hive in which the individual model (blue line) provided a better fit than the collective foraging model (red line). d Dance duration distribution for a hive in which the collective foraging model (red line) provided a better fit than the individual model (blue line). The typical shoulder or “hump” in the distribution is indicative of contribution of recruitment dances. Panels show the complimentary cumulative frequencies with binned frequency distributions as inset.
