=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2951/paper9
|storemode=property
|title=Extended Abstract: Simulation of Interactions between Beehives
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2951/paper9.pdf
|volume=Vol-2951
|authors=Volha Taliaronak,Heinrich Mellmann,Verena V. Hafner
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/csp/TaliaronakMH21
}}
==Extended Abstract: Simulation of Interactions between Beehives==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2951/paper9.pdf
Extended Abstract: Simulation of Interactions
between Beehives
Volha Taliaronak1 , Heinrich Mellmann1 and Verena V. Hafner1
1
Humboldt University of Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, Berlin, 10117, Germany
Abstract
The interdisciplinary EU project HIVEOPOLIS aims to develop a new generation of intelligent beehive
which might help bees in coping with adverse environmental factors. As a part of the HIVEOPOLIS
project, this extended abstract reports on our ongoing work on the simulation of a decision-making
process based on interactions between HIVEOPOLIS units and bee colonies which are not equipped
with HIVEOPOLIS systems using the Mesa simulation framework.
Keywords
Multi-agent systems, Bio-hybrid systems, HIVEOPOLIS
1. Introduction
The impact of humans on the environment is difficult to exaggerate. Habitats of different species
have been reduced, transformed or damaged as a result of monocultural agriculture, pesticide
pollution, etc [1]. These changes in addition to colony diseases dramatically affect insects
including bees. As a result, one of the concerning issues has become the sharing of valuable
food sources, such as pollen and nectar as well as the limited habitat between native bee species
and honeybees, as invasive species [2, 3].
The interdisciplinary EU project HIVEOPOLIS aims to develop a new generation of intelligent
beehive which might help bees in coping with these adverse environmental factors and provide
a synergistic added value to the colony, to its owner, and to the ecosystem in general [4, 5]. The
intelligent beehives will form connected bio-hybrid systems. One concrete example is an active
selection of foraging grounds, which could enable a mutually beneficial distribution of resources
among several beehives and avoidance of areas affected by pesticides. Bees communicate
beneficial foraging locations through a specific waggle dance [5, 6]. A HIVEOPOLIS beehive will
be equipped with a technology, which enables decoding, suppressing and imitating such dances
and allows the system to actively influence the foraging locations of the bees [5, 6]. A prototype
of such robot, called RoboBee, was introduced in [6]. And as observed in [7], HIVEOPOLIS unit
may incorporate one or more dancing robots which interact with honeybees to communicate
them directions to floral resources. From that perspective a bio-hybrid HIVEOPOLIS beehive
can be seen as an autonomous robot making autonomous decisions and negotiating with other
CS&P 2021: 29th International Workshop on Concurrency, Specification and Programming
" taliarov@hu-berlin.de (V. Taliaronak); mellmann@informatik.hu-berlin.de (H. Mellmann);
hafner@informatik.hu-berlin.de (V. V. Hafner)
0000-0001-8150-024X (V. Taliaronak)
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
beehives, e.g., send the bees to a particular region or, potentially, prevent them from harvesting
in another.
Bees are able to exhibit complex swarm behaviors like decentralized target selection and
workload balancing [8]. A decision mechanism steering the behavior of a whole bee swarm
requires a model describing how waggle dances generated by robots which mimic honeybees
would influence the behavior of the bees and their interaction with the environment. The first
results of such modeling experiments for foraging choices in a bee swarm were introduced in
[7] where the authors investigate the effect of robots on the hive’s foraging decisions using a
mathematical model. Further, such models can form a basis for a decision process based on
anticipation as described in [9].
In this paper we introduce a proof of concept rule-based decision-making process and simu-
late behavior of bees’ colonies and their interaction with the environment using agent based
modeling approach. We aim to simulate different scenarios and study direct and indirect
interactions between native bee colonies and honeybee colonies with integrated external regu-
lation mechanisms and gain insights about possible competitive factors as well as cooperative
strategies.
2. Modeling Methods
Behavior and interactions are the two key issues for modeling ecosystem organization. Using
the Mesa framework [10], we direct our attention on a simulation of a decision-making process
based on the interactions between agents (bees) and the environment, while bee agents’ behavior
is reduced to honeybees’ foraging behavior, and the surrounding landscape is modeled as a
simplified forage map [11].
2.1. Mesa
In comparison to the other well-known simulation tools, like NetLogo [12] and Mason [13],
this framework has several competitive advantages. First of all, it is python-based and can be
extended with modern python libraries and other python-based tools (e.g., Jupyter Notebook
and Pandas tools) in order to create more complex simulations or analyse collected data. The
collected data can be stored in a JSON or Pandas DataFrame format for further analysis. Second,
Mesa consists of decoupled components, which can be replaced or used independently from
each other. Third, visualization is browser-based, which provides additional opportunities for
sharing of visualisation via the Internet. Since all components in the Mesa framework are
decoupled, visualisation modules can be customized, extended, replaced, or removed.
2.2. Simulation
The environment of our simulations is discrete, modeled as a squared grid, with three types of
agents: bee, beehive, and field. The beehives are modeled as hierarchical multi-agent system
which consists of two levels: bees’ level and beehives’ (or colonies’) level. A bee swarm is
considered to be a multi-agent system with a non-hierarchical structure, where every bee is
modeled as a separate agent. On the other hand, every beehive itself is considered an agent.
Despite the fact that HIVEOPOLIS unit has been conceived and, in reality, may be designed as a
robotic honeybee imitating waggle dancing, in our simulations we implemented HIVEOPOLIS
unit on the beehives’ level as a separate type of beehive agent. Figure 1 (Right) demonstrates
one of our simulations, which consists of two beehives ((1) is a beehive with an integrated
HIVEOPOLIS unit and (2) is a wild beehive) with bees (e.g., (6), (7)) and three possible food
sources ((3), (4), (5)), green-colored cells represent field agents without available food sources. For
the sake of simplicity, we do not model the whole complex social organisation of an individual
colony, ignore the diversity of bees’ casts (workers, drones, queen) and food sources (nectar,
pollen, water). Bee and beehive agents are described with a limited number of parameters (e.g.,
maximum flying distance, collected amount of food, coordinates of a known field, abundance
of a field, etc). Floral sources are described using only three relevant parameters: amount of
available resources, blooming tag, flowering period. We simulate agents’ movements as discrete
events. An activation order of agents is randomized in order to reduce its impact on the model.
Figure 1: Simulation of the environment with two beehives. Left: graphs of collected food for each
beehive. Right: a 2D view of the environment.
We implemented two foraging strategies for bees agents: random foraging search and targeted
foraging on the known floral patch. We also considered two different interaction strategies be-
tween agents. The first one, a direct interaction, occurs on the bees’ level, when the information
about known foraging resources is communicated between simulated bees from one colony. So,
for instance, the wild bees start with the random search strategy, as seen in Figure 1 (Right).
After a discovery of a field with available floral resources (e.g., field (3) in Figure 1 (Right)), the
bees return back to the hive and share the information about the found floral resource with
other bees which are also in the hive. Bees might follow the communicated directions, in this
case, they switch to the targeted foraging strategy, but might also ignore this information about
the found food sources. The second one, an indirect interaction, occurs on the beehives’ level,
where the internal robot is supposed to define the most optimal food source and communicate
it to the bees. This type of interactions is implemented only in the beehives with HIVEOPOLIS
units. We assume that it will make autonomous decisions regarding optimal foraging sources
based on information about the surrounding landscape, weather and other information received
from the external sources as well as its predictions about behavior of the other beehives from
the surroundings. The implementation details of the HIVEOPOLIS’ interior robot are outside
the scope of this work. In our simulations, the optimal fields are determined using rule-based
decision-making approach which is based on three parameters: a distance parameter, a flowering
period of fields, and an abundance of fields. In every simulation step, it is checked if there
are any bees in the hive. If there are any, then a new optimal field is being calculated on the
beehive’s level and communicated to the bees on the bees’ level. Also a decision, to follow the
communicated coordinates or ignore them is being simulated on the bees’ level. Data generated
during simulation is displayed in the real-time mode in the live chart (see Figure 1 (Left)), the x
axis shows the number of simulation steps, the y axis – the foraging dynamics of the modeled
hives.
3. Results and Discussion
Bees are not only important pollinators but also a prime example of swarm intelligence [8]. Such
modeling tools, like BEESCOUT [11] and BEEHAVE [14], can be useful for better understanding
and exploration of the possible realistic scenarios of colony natural dynamics, bees’ searching
behavior in habitats with different landscape configuration as well as interactions between
bees. Nevertheless, these tools are NetLogo based and cannot be applied for simulations of
interactions between several colonies.
We are not the first, who is aiming to simulate decision-making processes in bees’ swarms.
A multi-agent simulation able to simulate the dynamics of honeybee nectar foraging was
conducted using NetLogo tool and introduced in [8]. The authors implemented experiments
reported in [15] and other works of T. Seeley, who investigated decision-making mechanisms
within bee swarm.
Nonetheless, in our work, we aim to model and simulate decision-making processes not only
within one colony, as it was done in [15, 8], but in a system of beehives and HIVEOPOLIS
units. For this reason, we examined the factors relevant for a selection process of foraging
sources. In [15] the authors highlighted three main factors, which are being considered during a
process of choosing nectar sources: distance, quality and the abundance of the food. The factors
determining the quality of food sources are, for instance, difficulty of feeding at the source,
direction in relation to the wind, and the colony’s need for food, etc [15]. In our first attempt of
simulations, we focus on a distance from hive and abundance of patches. We also added one
more parameter, which was not mentioned by [15], but can be relevant for our purposes, –
flowering period of floral patches. Quality of food resources is a complex factor which is hard
to capture and implement without any real data. Nonetheless, we hope to find a way how to
integrate this parameter in our further simulation scenarios.
A HIVEOPOLIS bio-hybrid system could serve as a mechanism for implementing interactions
on the beehive level and having an influence on the colony decisions regarding chosen food
resources. Such centralized control mechanism might be beneficial for cases in which several
bee colonies have to share limited floral resources, floral resources are difficult to discover due
to the morphology of the beehive surrounding area, or a gentle way to redirect the bees to
the desired fields is required. It might be a feasible path to make safer or ecologically more
important food sources more attractive to bees, even if these sources are energetically less
profitable [7].
Our simulations don’t capture the whole complexity of a decision-making process yet. We are
going to continue our work on simulations with different combinations of possible competitive
factors such as a food diversity. We consider evaluation of collected data to be a non-trivial task,
which will require expertise from other scientific fields. The collected data are strongly affected
by the parameters (e.g., number of bees per hive), which are relative values. Nevertheless,
all parameters can be changed without much extra effort. Simulation experiments have low
computational cost and can be run repeatedly.
4. Conclusion
Mesa is a convenient, powerful tool, which provides a solid base functionality for easy and
comfortable simulation implementations as well as enough capabilities for customization of
created models and their visualisation. Since the framework is based on Python, it might be
advantageous and handy for a wide range of researchers.
Multi-agent systems are useful for problems integrating social and spatial aspects and suitable
for simulation of complex systems. Models and simulations of beehives have been studied for a
long time, so that we can draw experience from a rich library of literature. The novel direction
of this work is the study of the simulation scenarios as a basis for a decision mechanism, which
would allow a bio-hybrid beehive to act autonomously in a way beneficial to itself and its
environment. Our preliminary results have shown coherent behaviors of the whole simulation,
nevertheless, the model parameters require further tuning and scientific justification. Our
further work will be focused on extension and improving of the existing simulation model. In
order to increase credibility of our simulations, we aim to utilise geospatial data. The goal is to
integrate an augmented map of a landscape and model the distribution of the floral resources
and landscape features more precisely. Further, we are planning on collecting additional data
and storing it in DataFrame format for further analysis using modern data science libraries.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the EU H2020 program under grant agreement No. 824069
(HIVEOPOLIS).
References
[1] O. Komasilova, V. Komasilovs, A. Kviesis, N. Bumanis, H. Mellmann, A. Zacepins, Model
for the bee apiary location evaluation, Agronomy Research 18 (2020) 1350–1358. doi:10.
15159/AR.20.090.
[2] A. Hudewenz, A.-M. Klein, Competition between honey bees and wild bees and the role of
nesting resources in a nature reserve, Journal of Insect Conservation 17 (2013) 1275–1283.
doi:10.1007/s10841-013-9609-1.
[3] C. Rasmussen, Y. L. Dupont, H. B. Madsen, P. Bogusch, D. Goulson, L. Herbertsson, K. P.
Maia, A. Nielsen, J. M. Olesen, S. G. Potts, S. P. M. Roberts, M. A. K. Sydenham, P. Kryger,
Evaluating competition for forage plants between honey bees and wild bees in denmark,
PLOS ONE 16 (2021) 1–19. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250056.
[4] CORDIS, Futuristic beehives for a smart metropolis, 2019. URL: https://cordis.europa.eu/
project/id/824069.
[5] A. Ilgün, K. Angelov, M. Stefanec, S. Schönwetter-Fuchs, V. Stokanic, J. Vollmann, D. N.
Hofstadler, M. H. Kärcher, H. Mellmann, V. Taliaronak, A. Kviesis, V. Komasilovs, M. A.
Becher, M. Szopek, D. M. Dormagen, R. Barmak, E. Bairaktarov, M. Broisin, R. Thenius,
R. Mills, S. C. Nicolis, A. Campo, A. Zacepins, S. Petrov, J.-L. Deneubourg, F. Mondada,
T. Landgraf, V. V. Hafner, T. Schmickl, Bio-hybrid systems for ecosystem level effects, in:
Proceedings of the ALIFE 2021: The 2021 Conference on Artificial Life, MIT Press Direct,
Virtual (formerly Prague), Czech Republic, 2021. doi:10.1162/isal_a_00396.
[6] T. Landgraf, D. Bierbach, A. Kirbach, R. Cusing, M. Oertel, K. Lehmann, U. Greggers,
R. Menzel, R. Rojas, Dancing honey bee robot elicits dance-following and recruits foragers,
2018. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.07126.
[7] D. Lazic, T. Schmickl, Can robots inform a honeybee colony’s foraging decision-making?,
in: Proceedings of the ALIFE 2021: The 2021 Conference on Artificial Life, MIT Press
Direct, Virtual (formerly Prague), Czech Republic, 2021. doi:10.1162/isal_a_00397.
[8] T. Schmickl, K. Crailsheim, Costs of environmental fluctuations and benefits of dynamic
decentralized foraging decisions in honey bees, in: C. Anderson, T. Balch (Eds.), The 2nd
International Workshop on the Mathematics and algorithms of Social Insects Proceedings,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2003, pp. 145–152.
[9] H. Mellmann, B. Schlotter, L. Musiolek, V. V. Hafner, Anticipation as a mechanism for
complex behavior in artificial life, in: Proceedings of the ALIFE 2020: The 2020 Conference
on Artificial Life, MIT Press Direct, Virtual (formerly Prague), Czech Republic, 2020, pp.
157–159. doi:10.1162/isal_a_00314.
[10] J. Kazil, D. Masad, A. Crooks, Utilizing python for agent-based modeling: The mesa
framework, in: R. Thomson, H. Bisgin, C. Dancy, A. Hyder, M. Hussain (Eds.), Social,
Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling, volume 12268 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Springer, Cham, 2020, pp. 308–317. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61255-9_30.
[11] M. A. Becher, V. Grimm, J. Knapp, J. Horn, G. Twiston-Davies, J. L. Osborne, Beescout: A
model of bee scouting behaviour and a software tool for characterizing nectar/pollen land-
scapes for beehave, Ecological Modelling 340 (2016) 126–133. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.
2016.09.013.
[12] S. Tisue, U. Wilensky, Netlogo: A simple environment for modeling complexity, in:
C. Anderson, T. Balch (Eds.), The International Conference on Complex Systems, Boston,
MA, USA, 2004.
[13] S. Luke, C. Cioffi-Revilla, L. Panait, K. M. Sullivan, G. Balan, Mason: A multi-agent
simulation environment, SIMULATION 81 (2005) 517–527.
[14] M. A. Becher, V. G. P. Thorbek, J. Horn, P. J. Kennedy, J. L. Osborne, Beehave: a systems
model of honeybee colony dynamics and foraging to explore multifactorial causes of colony
failure, Journal of Applied Ecology 51 (2014) 470–482. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12222.
[15] T. Seeley, S. Camazine, J. Sneyd, Collective decision-making in honey bees: How colonies
choose among nectar sources, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28 (1991) 277–290.
doi:10.1007/BF00175101.