The effect of foraging specialization on various learning tasks in the honey bee (Apis mellifera)

被引:24
作者
Drezner-Levy, Tamar [1 ]
Smith, Brian H. [2 ]
Shafir, Sharoni [1 ]
机构
[1] Hebrew Univ Jerusalem, Robert H Smith Fac Agr Food & Environm, Dept Entomol, B Triwaks Bee Res Ctr, IL-76100 Rehovot, Israel
[2] Arizona State Univ, Sch Life Sci, Phoenix, AZ USA
关键词
Apis mellifera; Risk sensitivity; Latent inhibition; Proboscis extension conditioning; COLONY-LEVEL SELECTION; DIVISION-OF-LABOR; RISK-SENSITIVITY; SUCROSE RESPONSIVENESS; RESPONSE THRESHOLDS; HERITABLE VARIATION; LATENT INHIBITION; L; BEHAVIOR; GENOTYPE;
D O I
10.1007/s00265-009-0829-z
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Honey bee foragers may collect nectar, pollen, water, or propolis, and their foraging specialization has been associated with several behavioral traits. By conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER), we compared the performance of foragers that collected nectar, pollen, both nectar and pollen, or water in several learning and choice assays. Foragers were first tested in a three-trial olfactory associative learning assay. For further tests, we selected only good learners that responded in two out of three conditioning trials. One group was tested in an additional olfactory associative learning assay involving different reward volumes and concentrations. Another group was tested for risk sensitivity in a two-alternative forced-choice PER procedure and then in a latent inhibition (LI) assay. Levels of acquisition in olfactory associative learning were highest in pollen and water foragers, and better acquisition was associated with collection of heavier pollen loads and smaller and lighter nectar loads of lower sugar concentration. Among the good learners, pollen foragers still showed better acquisition than nectar foragers when rewarded with several volumes and concentrations of sucrose solution. Pollen and nectar foragers were equally risk averse, preferring a constant reward to a variable one, and choice was not affected by pollen load weight. Contrary to a previous study, pollen and nectar foragers were similarly affected by LI. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy between the two studies. Overall, our results suggest that differences between foraging groups in sensitivity to various stimuli may not correspond to differences in choice behavior.
引用
收藏
页码:135 / 148
页数:14
相关论文
共 52 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1991, Detection theory: A user's guide
[2]   Variable rewards and discrimination ability in an insect herbivore: what and how does a hungry locust learn? [J].
Behmer, ST ;
Belt, CE ;
Shapiro, MS .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY, 2005, 208 (18) :3463-3473
[3]   Classical conditioning since Pavlov [J].
Bitterman, M. E. .
REVIEW OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 10 (04) :365-376
[4]   Comparative analysis of learning in honeybees [J].
Bitterman, ME .
ANIMAL LEARNING & BEHAVIOR, 1996, 24 (02) :123-141
[5]   CALCULATION OF SUGAR CONCENTRATION IN FLOWER NECTAR [J].
BOLTEN, AB ;
FEINSINGER, P ;
BAKER, HG ;
BAKER, I .
OECOLOGIA, 1979, 41 (03) :301-304
[6]   Heritable variation for latent inhibition and its correlation with reversal learning in honeybees (Apis mellifera) [J].
Chandra, SBC ;
Hosler, JS ;
Smith, BH .
JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 114 (01) :86-97
[7]   Quantitative trait loci associated with reversal learning and latent inhibition in honeybees (Apis mellifera) [J].
Chandra, SBC ;
Hunt, GJ ;
Cobey, S ;
Smith, BH .
BEHAVIOR GENETICS, 2001, 31 (03) :275-285
[8]  
Cobey S., 1999, Proc. 36th Apimondia Congr., Vancouver, P26
[9]   RANK TRANSFORMATIONS AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN PARAMETRIC AND NONPARAMETRIC STATISTICS [J].
CONOVER, WJ ;
IMAN, RL .
AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 1981, 35 (03) :124-129
[10]   ANALYSIS OF CHOICE IN HONEYBEES [J].
COUVILLON, PA ;
BITTERMAN, ME .
ANIMAL LEARNING & BEHAVIOR, 1985, 13 (03) :246-252