Comparing the Appetitive Learning Performance of Six European Honeybee Subspecies in a Common Apiary

The Western honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) is one of the most widespread insects with numerous subspecies in its native range. How far adaptation to local habitats has affected the cognitive skills of the different subspecies is an intriguing question that we investigate in this study. Naturally mated queens of the following five subspecies from different parts of Europe were transferred to Southern Germany: A. m. iberiensis from Portugal, A. m. mellifera from Belgium, A. m. macedonica from Greece, A. m. ligustica from Italy, and A. m. ruttneri from Malta. We also included the local subspecies A. m. carnica in our study. New colonies were built up in a common apiary where the respective queens were introduced. Worker offspring from the different subspecies were compared in classical olfactory learning performance using the proboscis extension response. Prior to conditioning, we measured individual sucrose responsiveness to investigate whether possible differences in learning performances were due to differential responsiveness to the sugar water reward. Most subspecies did not differ in their appetitive learning performance. However, foragers of the Iberian honeybee, A. m. iberiensis, performed significantly more poorly, despite having a similar sucrose responsiveness. We discuss possible causes for the poor performance of the Iberian honeybees, which may have been shaped by adaptation to the local habitat.

Appetitive olfactory learning suffers in ants when octopamine or dopamine receptors are blocked

Associative learning relies on the detection of coincidence between a stimulus and a reward or punishment. In the insect brain, this process is carried out in the mushroom bodies under control of octopaminergic and dopaminergic neurons. It was assumed that appetitive learning is governed by octopaminergic neurons, while dopamine is required for aversive learning. This view has been recently challenged: Both neurotransmitters are involved in both types of learning in bees and flies. Here, we test which neurotransmitters are required for appetitive learning in ants. We trained Lasius niger workers to discriminate two mixtures of linear hydrocarbons and to associate one of them with a sucrose reward. We analysed the walking paths of the ants using machine learning and found that the ants spent more time near the rewarded odour than the other, a preference that was stable for at least 24 hours. We then treated the ants before learning with either epinastine, an octopamine receptor blocker, or with flupentixol, a dopamine receptor blocker. Ants with blocked octopamine receptors did not prefer the rewarded odour. Octopamine signalling is thus necessary for appetitive learning of olfactory cues, likely because it signals information about odours or reward to the mushroom body. In contrast, ants with blocked dopamine receptors initially learned the rewarded odour but failed to retrieve this memory 24 hours later. Dopamine is thus likely required for long-term memory consolidation, independent of short-term memory formation. Our results show that appetitive olfactory learning depends on both octopamine and dopamine signalling in ants.

Comparing the appetitive learning performance of six European honeybee subspecies in a common apiary

The Western honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) is one of the most widespread insects with numerous subspecies in its native range. In how far adaptation to local habitats has affected the cognitive skills of the different subspecies is an intriguing question which we investigate in this study. Naturally mated queens of the following five subspecies from different parts of Europe were transferred to Southern Germany: A. m. iberiensis from Portugal, A. m. mellifera from Belgium, A. m. macedonica from Greece, A.m. ligustica from Italy and A. m. ruttneri from Malta. We also included the local subspecies A.m. carnica in our study. New colonies were built up in a common apiary where the respective queens were introduced. Worker offspring from the different subspecies was compared in classical olfactory learning performance using the proboscis extension response. Prior to conditioning we measured individual sucrose responsiveness to investigate whether possible differences in learning performances were due to a differential responsiveness to the sugar water reward. Most subspecies did not differ in their appetitive learning performance. However, foragers of the Iberian honeybee, A. m. iberiensis, performed significantly more poorly, despite having a similar sucrose responsiveness. We discuss possible causes for the low cognitive performance of the Iberian honeybees, which may have been shaped by adaptation to local habitat.

Appetitive learning relies on octopamine and dopamine in ants

Associative learning relies on the detection of coincidence between a stimulus and a reward or punishment. In the insect brain, this process is thought to be carried out in the mushroom bodies under control of octopaminergic and dopaminergic neurons. It was assumed that appetitive learning is governed by octopaminergic neurons, while dopamine is required for aversive learning. This view has been recently challenged: Both neurotransmitters seem to be involved in both types of memory in bees and flies. Here, we test which neurotransmitters are required for appetitive learning in ants. We trained Lasius niger ant workers to discriminate two mixtures of linear hydrocarbons and associate one of them with a sucrose reward. We analysed the behaviour of the trained ants using machine learning and found that they preferred the rewarded odour over the other, a preference that was stable for at least 24 hours. We then treated the ants before learning with either epinastine, an octopamine receptor blocker, or with flupentixol, a dopamine receptor blocker. Ants with blocked octopamine receptors did not remember the rewarded odour. Octopamine signalling is thus necessary for the formation of appetitive memory. In contrast, ants with blocked dopamine receptors initially learned the rewarded odour but failed to retrieve this memory 24 hours later. Dopamine is thus required for long-term memory consolidation during appetitive conditioning, independent of short-term memory formation. Our results show that appetitive learning depends on both octopamine and dopamine signalling in ants.

Inactivation of posterior but not anterior dorsomedial caudate-putamen impedes learning with self-administered nicotine stimulus

ABSTRACTThe rodent caudate-putamen is a large heterogeneous neural structure with distinct anatomical connections that differ in their control of learning processes. Previous research suggests that the anterior and posterior dorsomedial caudate-putamen (a- and p-dmCPu) differentially regulate associative learning with a non-contingent nicotine stimulus. The current study used bilateral NMDA-induced excitotoxic lesions to the a-dmCPu and p-dmCPu to determine the functional involvement of a-dmCPu and p-dmCPu in appetitive learning with contingent nicotine stimulus. Rats with a-dmCPu, p-dmCPu, or sham lesions were trained to lever-press for intravenous nicotine (0.03 mg/kg/inf) followed by access to sucrose 30 s later. After 1, 3, 9, and 20 nicotine-sucrose training sessions, appetitive learning in the form of a goal-tracking response was assessed using a non-contingent nicotine-alone test. All rats acquired nicotine self-administration and learned to retrieve sucrose from a receptacle at equal rates. However, rats with lesions to p-dmCPu demonstrated blunted learning of the nicotine-sucrose association. Our primary findings show that rats with lesions to p-dmCPu had a blunted goal-tracking response to a non-contingent nicotine administration after 20 consecutive days of nicotine-sucrose pairing. Our findings extend previous reports to a contingent model of nicotine self-administration and show that p-dmCPu is involved in associative learning with nicotine stimulus using a paradigm where rats voluntarily self-administer nicotine infusions that are paired with access to sucrose—a paradigm that closely resembles learning processes observed in humans.

Appetitive reversal learning differences of two honey bee subspecies with different foraging behaviors

We aimed to examine mechanistically the observed foraging differences across two honey bee, Apis mellifera, subspecies using the proboscis extension response assay. Specifically, we compared differences in appetitive reversal learning ability between honey bee subspecies: Apis mellifera caucasica (Pollman), and Apis mellifera syriaca (Skorikov) in a “common garden” apiary. It was hypothesized that specific learning differences could explain previously observed foraging behavior differences of these subspecies: A.m. caucasica switches between different flower color morphs in response to reward variability, and A.m. syriaca does not switch. We suggest that flower constancy allows reduced exposure by minimizing search and handling time, whereas plasticity is important when maximizing harvest in preparation for long winter is at a premium. In the initial or Acquisition phase of the test we examined specifically discrimination learning, where bees were trained to respond to a paired conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus and not to respond to a second conditioned stimulus that is not followed by an unconditioned stimulus. We found no significant differences among the subspecies in the Acquisition phase in appetitive learning. During the second, Reversal phase of the experiment, where flexibility in association was tested, the paired and unpaired conditioned stimuli were reversed. During the Reversal phase A.m. syriaca showed a reduced ability to learn the reverse association in the appetitive learning task. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that A.m. syriaca foragers cannot change the foraging choice because of lack of flexibility in appetitive associations under changing contingencies. Interestingly, both subspecies continued responding to the previously rewarded conditioned stimulus in the reversal phase. We discuss potential ecological correlates and molecular underpinnings of these differences in learning across the two subspecies. In addition, in a supplemental experiment we demonstrated that these differences in appetitive reversal learning do not occur in other learning contexts.

Appetitive reversal learning differences of two honey bee subspecies with different foraging behaviors

We aimed to examine mechanistically the observed foraging differences across two honey bee, Apis mellifera, subspecies using the Proboscis Extension Response (PER) assay. Specifically, we compared differences in appetitive reversal learning ability between honey bee subspecies:Apis mellifera caucasica(Pollman), andApis mellifera syriaca(Skorikov) in a “common garden” apiary. It was hypothesized that specific learning differences could explain previously observed foraging behavior differences of these subspecies: A.m. caucasica switches between different flower color morphs in response to reward variability, and A.m. syriaca does not switch. We suggest that flower constancy allows reduced exposure by minimizing search and handling time, whereas plasticity is important when maximizing harvest in preparation for long winter is at a premium. In the initial or Acquisition phase of the test we examined specifically discrimination learning, where bees were trained to respond to a paired conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus and not to respond to a second conditioned stimulus that is not followed by an unconditioned stimulus. We found no significant differences among the subspecies in the Acquisition phase in appetitive learning. During the second, Reversal phase of the experiment, where flexibility in association was tested, the paired and unpaired conditioned stimuli were reversed. During the Reversal phaseA. mellifera syriacashowed a reduced ability to learn the reverse association in the appetitive learning task. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that A.m. syriaca foragers cannot change the foraging choice because of lack of flexibility in appetitive associations under changing contingencies. Interestingly, both subspecies continued responding to the previously rewarded conditioned stimulus in the reversal phase. We discuss potential ecological correlates and molecular underpinnings of these differences in learning across the two subspecies. In addition, in a supplemental experiment we demonstrated that these differences in appetitive reversal learning do not occur in other learning contexts.