scholarly journals Pollen reinforces learning in honey bee pollen foragers but not in nectar foragers

2020 ◽  
Vol 223 (22) ◽  
pp. jeb230250
Author(s):  
Denise Nery ◽  
Emilia Moreno ◽  
Andrés Arenas
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Physiological Mechanism ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Division Of Labour ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Reinforced Learning ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Foraging Specialization ◽  
Better Than

ABSTRACTSearching for reward motivates and drives behaviour. In honey bees Apis mellifera, specialized pollen foragers are attracted to and learn odours with pollen. However, the role of pollen as a reward remains poorly understood. Unlike nectar, pollen is not ingested during collection. We hypothesized that pollen (but not nectar) foragers could learn pollen by sole antennal or tarsal stimulation. Then, we tested how pairing of pollen (either hand- or bee-collected) and a neutral odour during a pre-conditioning affects performance of both pollen and nectar foragers during the classical conditioning of the proboscis extension response. Secondly, we tested whether nectar and pollen foragers perceive the simultaneous presentation of pollen (on the tarsi) and sugar (on the antennae) as a better reinforcement than sucrose alone. Finally, we searched for differences in learning of the pollen and nectar foragers when they were prevented from ingesting the reward during the conditioning. Differences in pollen-reinforced learning correlate with division of labour between pollen and nectar foragers. Results show that pollen foragers performed better than nectar foragers during the conditioning phase after being pre-conditioned with pollen. Pollen foragers also performed better than nectar foragers in both the acquisition and extinction phases of the conditioning, when reinforced with the dual reward. Consistently, pollen foragers showed improved abilities to learn cues reinforced without sugar ingestion. We discussed that differences in how pollen and nectar foragers respond to a cue associated with pollen greatly contribute to the physiological mechanism that underlies foraging specialization in the honeybee.

scholarly journals Honey Bees Can Taste Amino and Fatty Acids in Pollen, but Not Sterols

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian A. Ruedenauer ◽  
Niklas W. Biewer ◽  
Carmen A. Nebauer ◽  
Maximilian Scheiner ◽  
Johannes Spaethe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Acids ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Chemical Compounds ◽  
Nutritional Composition ◽  
Successful Development ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Foraging Decisions ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Plant Pollen

The nutritional composition of food is often complex as resources contain a plethora of different chemical compounds, some of them more, some less meaningful to consumers. Plant pollen, a major food source for bees, is of particular importance as it comprises nearly all macro- and micronutrients required by bees for successful development and reproduction. However, perceiving and evaluating all nutrients may be tedious and impair quick foraging decisions. It is therefore likely that nutrient perception is restricted to specific nutrients or nutrient groups. To better understand the role of taste in pollen quality assessment by bees we investigated nutrient perception in the Western honey bee, Apis mellifera. We tested if the bees were able to perceive concentration differences in amino acids, fatty acids, and sterols, three highly important nutrient groups in pollen, via antennal reception. By means of proboscis extension response (PER) experiments with chemotactile stimulation, we could show that honey bees can distinguish between pollen differing in amino and fatty acid concentration, but not in sterol concentration. Bees were also not able to perceive sterols when presented alone. Our finding suggests that assessment of pollen protein and lipid content is prioritized over sterol content.

scholarly journals Honey bees can store and retrieve independent memory traces after complex experiences that combine appetitive and aversive associations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Klappenbach ◽  
Agustin E Lara ◽  
Fernando F Locatelli
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Differential Conditioning ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Aversive Conditioning ◽  
Appetitive Conditioning ◽  
Olfactory Conditioning ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Conditioning Paradigm ◽  
Aversive Events ◽  
Proboscis Extension

Real-world experiences do often mix appetitive and aversive events. Understanding the ability of animals to extract, store and use this information is an important issue in neurobiology. We used honey bees as model to study learning and memory after a differential conditioning that combines appetitive and aversive training trials. First of all, we describe an aversive conditioning paradigm that constitutes a clear opposite of the well known appetitive olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension response. A neutral odour is presented paired with the bitter substance quinine. Aversive memory is evidenced later as an odour-specific impairment in appetitive conditioning. Then we tested the effect of mixing appetitive and aversive conditioning trials distributed along the same training session. Differential conditioning protocols like this were used before to study the ability to discriminate odours, however they were not focused on whether appetitive and aversive memories are formed. We found that after a differential conditioning, honey bees establish independent appetitive and aversive memories that do not interfere with each other during acquisition or storage. Finally, we moved the question forward to retrieval and memory expression to evaluate what happens when appetitive and the aversive learned odours are mixed during test. Interestingly, opposite memories compete in a way that they do not cancel each other out. Honey bees showed the ability to switch from expressing appetitive to aversive memory depending on their satiation level.

scholarly journals Ovary activation does not correlate with pollen and nectar foraging specialization in the bumblebeeBombus impatiens

PeerJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. e4415
Author(s):  
Meagan A. Simons ◽  
Adam R. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Foraging Activity ◽  
Sensory Sensitivity ◽  
Reproductive Conflict ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Ovary Activation ◽  
Ground Plan ◽  
Nectar Preference ◽  
Mixed Support ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Foraging Specialization

Social insect foragers may specialize on certain resource types. Specialization on pollen or nectar among honeybee foragers is hypothesized to result from associations between reproductive physiology and sensory tuning that evolved in ancestral solitary bees (the Reproductive Ground-Plan Hypothesis; RGPH). However, the two non-honeybee species studied showed no association between specialization and ovary activation. Here we investigate the bumblebeeB. impatiensbecause it has the most extensively studied pollen/nectar specialization of any bumblebee. We show that ovary size does not differ between pollen specialist, nectar specialist, and generalist foragers, contrary to the predictions of the RGPH. However, we also found mixed support for the second prediction of the RGPH, that sensory sensitivity, measured through proboscis extension response (PER), is greater among pollen foragers. We also found a correlation between foraging activity and ovary size, and foraging activity and relative nectar preference, but no correlation between ovary size and nectar preference. In one colony non-foragers had larger ovaries than foragers, supporting the reproductive conflict and work hypothesis, but in the other colony they did not.

scholarly journals Do Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) Form Cognitive Representations of Unconditioned Stimuli?

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiri Li N. Stauch ◽  
Harrington Wells ◽  
Charles I. Abramson
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Experimental Designs ◽  
Not Given ◽  
Cognitive Representation ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Cognitive Representations ◽  
Avoidance Behaviors ◽  
The Us ◽  
Proboscis Extension

Previous research looking at expectancy in animals has used various experimental designs focusing on appetitive and avoidance behaviors. In this study, honey bees (Apis mellifera) were tested ina series of three proboscis extension response (PER) experiments to determine to what degree honey bees’ form a cognitive-representation of an unconditioned stimulus (US). Tthe first experiment, bees were presented with either a 2 sec. sucrose US or 2 sec. honey US appetitive reward and the proboscis-extension duration was measured under each scenario. The PER duration was longer for the honey US even though each US was presented for just 2 sec. Honey bees in the second experiment were tested during extinction trials on a conditioned stimulus (CS) of cinnamon or lavender that was paired with either the sucrose US or honey US in the acquisition trials. The proportion of bees showing the PER response to the CS was recorded for each extinction trial for each US scenario, as was the duration of the proboscis extension for each bee. Neither measure differed between the honey US and sucrose US scenarios, In experiment three, bees were presented with a cinnamon or lavender CS paired with either honey US or sucrose US in a set of acquisition trials, but here the US was not given until after the proboscis was retracted. The PER duration after the CS, and again subsequent after the US, were recorded. While the PER duration after the US was longer for honey, the PER duration after the CS did not differ between honey US and sucrose US.

scholarly journals Specialization on pollen or nectar in bumblebee foragers is not associated with ovary size, lipid reserves or sensory tuning

PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e2599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam R. Smith ◽  
Peter Graystock ◽  
William O.H. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Bombus Terrestris ◽  
Reproductive Physiology ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Sensory Sensitivity ◽  
Body Lipid ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Ovarian Activation ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Lipid Stores ◽  
Foraging Specialization

Foraging specialization allows social insects to more efficiently exploit resources in their environment. Recent research on honeybees suggests that specialization on pollen or nectar among foragers is linked to reproductive physiology and sensory tuning (the Reproductive Ground-Plan Hypothesis; RGPH). However, our understanding of the underlying physiological relationships in non-Apisbees is still limited. Here we show that the bumblebeeBombus terrestrishas specialist pollen and nectar foragers, and test whether foraging specialization inB. terrestrisis linked to reproductive physiology, measured as ovarian activation. We show that neither ovary size, sensory sensitivity, measured through proboscis extension response (PER), or whole-body lipid stores differed between pollen foragers, nectar foragers, or generalist foragers. Body size also did not differ between any of these three forager groups. Non-foragers had significantly larger ovaries than foragers. This suggests that potentially reproductive individuals avoid foraging.

scholarly journals Exposure to a biopesticide interferes with sucrose responsiveness and learning in honey bees

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Carlesso ◽  
Stefania Smargiassi ◽  
Lara Sassoli ◽  
Federico Cappa ◽  
Rita Cervo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Main Determinant ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Chemical Pesticides ◽  
Careful Assessment ◽  
Sucrose Responsiveness

AbstractThe entomopathogenic fungus Beauveriabassiana is a widely used biopesticide that is considered as an effective alternative to classical agrochemicals. B. bassiana is thought to be safe for pollinators although little is known about its side-effects on pollinators’ behaviour and cognition. Here, we focused on honey bees and used the proboscis extension response (PER) protocol to assess whether B. bassiana affects individual sucrose responsiveness, non-associative and associative olfactory learning and memory. Fungus-treated bees displayed an enhanced sucrose responsiveness, which could not be explained by metabolic alterations. Strikingly, exposed bees were twice as inconsistent as controls in response to sucrose, showing PER to lower but not to higher sucrose concentrations. Exposed bees habituated less to sucrose and had a better acquisition performance in the conditioning phase than controls. Further, neither mid- nor long-term memory were affected by the fungus. As sucrose responsiveness is the main determinant of division of foraging labour, these changes might unsettle the numerical ratio between the sub-castes of foragers leading to suboptimal foraging. Although the use of biocontrol strategies should be preferred over chemical pesticides, careful assessment of their side-effects is crucial before claiming that they are safe for pollinators.

Examining the Role of Language in Play Among Children With and Without Developmental Disabilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 795-806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Short ◽  
Rachael Cooper Schindler ◽  
Rita Obeid ◽  
Maia M. Noeder ◽  
Laura E. Hlavaty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Disabilities ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Free Play ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Play Skills ◽  
Critical Aspect ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Better Than

Purpose Play is a critical aspect of children's development, and researchers have long argued that symbolic deficits in play may be diagnostic of developmental disabilities. This study examined whether deficits in play emerge as a function of developmental disabilities and whether our perceptions of play are colored by differences in language and behavioral presentations. Method Ninety-three children participated in this study (typically developing [TD]; n = 23, developmental language disorders [DLD]; n = 24, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]; n = 26, and autism spectrum disorder [ASD]; n = 20). Children were videotaped engaging in free-play. Children's symbolic play (imagination, organization, elaboration, and comfort) was scored under conditions of both audible language and no audible language to assess diagnostic group differences in play and whether audible language impacted raters' perception of play. Results Significant differences in play were evident across diagnostic groups. The presence of language did not alter play ratings for the TD group, but differences were found among the other diagnostic groups. When language was audible, children with DLD and ASD (but not ADHD) were scored poorly on play compared to their TD peers. When language was not audible, children with DLD were perceived to play better than when language was audible. Conversely, children with ADHD showed organizational deficits when language was not available to support their play. Finally, children with ASD demonstrated poor play performance regardless of whether language was audible or not. Conclusions Language affects our understanding of play skills in some young children. Parents, researchers, and clinicians must be careful not to underestimate or overestimate play based on language presentation. Differential skills in language have the potential to unduly influence our perceptions of play for children with developmental disabilities.

Determinants of English as language choice among Unaccompanied Migrant Children (UMC) in Makassar, Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Andi Samsu Rijal ◽  
Andi Mega Januarti Putri
Keyword(s):  
Language Choice ◽  
Migrant Children ◽  
Immigrant Communities ◽  
The Public ◽  
International Language ◽  
Language User ◽  
Public Area ◽  
Better Than ◽  
Language Mastery

The essence of language is human activity. Communication with language is carried out through two basic human activities; speaking and listening during the interaction in a group of people. Immigrants in Makassar city communicate with immigrant communities and Makassar people. They used English and Indonesia to communicate with others. The aims of this article were to find out determinant factors of English as language choice among Unaccompanied Migrant Children (UMC) in Makassar and why they used English as their language choice to communicate with other people out of them. The data were taken from UMC in the shelter under the auspices of Makassar’s Social Office and in the public area of Makassar. This research was a qualitative approach; it was from a sociolinguistic perspective and focuses its analysis with the language choice among UMC. This research showed that most immigrants chose English as their language choice since they were in Makassar because they have acquired better than other international language and it has been mastered naturally by doing social interaction among themselves and people outside their community. UMC had more difficulties to socialize with Indonesian than the adult of Immigrants. Other than their lack of language mastery, they also have the anxiety to adapt to other immigrants and Makassar people. English was used by UMC to show their status as a foreigner who lived in a multicultural situation. Language becomes a power for a human being and it becomes a social identity for language user in one community. During the interaction of UMC in Makassar city, the role of English as an International language is shown.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document