ruor.uottawa.ca€¦ · Web viewOnce 20 choices were made, the bee was removed from the apparatus and killed, after which the bees in Experiment 2 were weighted on a Mettler Toledo

Pattern choices by bumblebees 1

Food restriction and threat of predation affect visual pattern choices by flower-naïve bumblebees

Service, E. W. & Plowright, C. M. S.*

School of Psychology

University of Ottawa

Ottawa, Ont. K1N 6N5

Canada

* Corresponding author.

Phone: 613-562-5800 x 4849

Fax: 613-562-5147

E-mail address: [email protected]

Wordcount: 5,353

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to determine whether a preference by flower-naïve bumblebees could

be created or enhanced by manipulating variables relevant to food collection and to defense

against predation. In two experiments, colonies of bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) were

deprived of pollen, exposed to CO2, or neither. Choices of individual workers in a radial arm

maze were monitored. In Experiment 1, both variables lead to a preference for corridors

occupied by a conspecific bee. The effect was specific: no change in preference for corridors

occupied by other objects (a coin and a piece of Styrofoam) was detected. In Experiment 2,

radial and concentric patterns were used, both of which were unoccupied. Only pollen

deprivation increased preference for radial stimuli, while CO2 had no discernible effect.

Preferences for visual patterns by bees leaving their colony for the first time are modulated by

variables that affect the internal state of the bees in problem-specific ways.

Keywords: Bumblebees; floral choice; carbon dioxide; social cognition; pattern recognition;

predation threat

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38


Highlights

For colonies of bumblebees (Bombus impatiens), predation threat was simulated by

exposure to CO2

Need for food was increased through deprivation of pollen

Both variables affected choice by flower-naïve bees of visual patterns occupied by

another bee

Only food deprivation affected choice of unoccupied patterns with a floral resemblance

Pattern preferences by bumblebees leaving their nest for the first time are context specific

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47


The possibility that foraging bees use the presence of other insects on flowers to govern

their own floral choices has received little if any support in the field. For instance, one survey

of counts of floral visitors found on flower heads of sunflowers (Helianthus annuus L.) and

onion flowers (Allium cepa L.) addressed the question of whether there would be attraction or

avoidance of inflorescences that were already occupied by one or more individuals. The

distribution of insects, including honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) and bumblebees (Bombus spp

Latreille), followed a Poisson distribution (Tepedino & Parker, 1981): there were neither more

nor less flowers with just one forager than would be expected by chance. The notion that insects

forage independently of other insects may, however, have been dismissed prematurely by field

biologists. Recently, an examination of the details of social effects on foraging in the laboratory

has revealed that bees use associative learning to take advantage of cues that predict important

outcomes such as presence of floral reward (Avarguès-Weber & Chittka, 2014a; Dawson,

Avarguès-Weber, Chittka, & Leadbeater, 2013; Leadbeater & Chittka, 2009) and presence of

predators (Dawson & Chittka, 2014)—in general, social information is used by insects

strategically (Grüter & Leadbeater, 2014). Moreover, workers that have just left their colony for

the first time also show a significant preference for flowers that are already occupied by another

forager (Kawaguchi, Ohashi, & Toquenaga, 2006; Leadbeater & Chittka, 2009), though this

effect is most evident when the flowers are rare and the occupiers are large relative to the flowers

(Plowright et al., 2013). Because of the difficulty in obtaining the pre-experimental histories of

bees seen foraging in the field, these sorts of effects may have eluded detection in nature.

In this paper, our focus is on the behaviour of “flower-naïve” bumblebee workers: bees

that leave their colony for the first time, and as such, have had no prior experience with flowers.

One view regarding the preferences for occupied flowers by flower-naïve bees is that they may

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70


help inexperienced bees to locate sources of food: a pattern with another bee on it is likely to be

a flower. One difficulty with this interpretation is that it is post hoc. Indeed, the exact opposite

argument can be made a priori: a flower that is occupied by a forager is likely to be empty or

well on its way to being depleted, and so it ought not to be preferred but avoided. In other

words, other foragers may possibly act as competitors rather than as informers (Baude, Danchin,

Mugabo & Dajoz., 2011). Another view is that the presence of an occupier on a flower has little

to do with signalling resource availability. Field observations have suggested that interactions

among bees on a flower are in fact aggressive (Kikuchi, 1963). Indeed, in the course of a prior

study on pattern preferences of flower-naïve bees (Orbán & Plowright, 2013), we captured a few

such interactions on film (Videos 1 and 2 in the Supplementary Materials): the behaviours of the

bee landing on the flower seemed more directed at the occupier than at the flower, which

suggests that the occupier might have been perceived as a predator or a competitor.

In two experiments, we manipulated internal states of flower-naïve bees. To promote

food finding behaviours, we manipulated the availability of pollen, which is needed for feeding

to larvae. To promote aggressive or defensive behaviours, we exposed the bees to CO2 to

simulate the presence of a mammalian predator. Predators of bumblebee colonies (Goulson,

2010) include mice (Mus domesticus), badgers (Meles meles L.) in Europe, and skunks (Mephitis

mephitis Schreber) North-America. Bumblebees perceive CO2: they respond to mammalian

breath and to currents of air containing 5 or 10% CO2 by hissing, which serves as an inter-

specific defence signal (Kirchner & Röschard, 1999).

If a preference for occupied stimuli is engaged when bees are food searching, then pollen

deprivation should create or increase the preference. If the preference is engaged in situations

that trigger aggressive behaviours, then exposure to CO2 should create or increase the preference.

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93


Experiment 1 tested these two predictions. In addition, by comparing the preference of stimuli

occupied by another bee with the preference of stimuli occupied by non-organic objects (a coin,

as in Dawson and Chittka (2012), and a piece of Styrofoam), we could begin to address the

question of whether any preference for occupied stimuli was indeed social.

Aggressive tendencies ought to be directed at other individuals and not at flowers

themselves. Heightening an aggressive tendency ought not to increase a preference for a pattern

that is more “floral” than another. To determine whether the effects of our variables were

specific to social preferences, Experiment 2 examined their effects on preference of floral

patterns with no occupiers. Given that radial patterns (illustrated in the legend of Figure 3) are,

by and large, preferred over concentric patterns (Orbán & Plowright, 2013) as they are thought to

resemble flowers in nature (Lehrer, Horridge, Zhang & Gadagkar, 1995), we examined the effect

of food deprivation and CO2 exposure on relative choice of these patterns. Food deprivation

ought, if anything, to increase preference for radial patterns, while CO2 should not. Given that

larger bumblebees tend to invest themselves in foraging duties while smaller bees tend to the

nest (Goulson, 2010), though task specialization is not as marked as in honeybees, we reasoned

that the effect of food deprivation might interact with body mass.

Methods

Subjects

Three commercial colonies of Bombus impatiens Cresson in plastic nest boxes (19.5 cm

X 17.5 cm X 12 cm high) were supplied by Koppert Canada. The colonies were covered with

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116


an opaque lid and so they received little light, as in nature. In Experiment 1, 48 bees from each

of two colonies were used, for a total of 96. In Experiment 2, 60 bees from the third colony were

used. All bees were tested the first time they left the colony: they had no pre-experimental

experience outside of the nest box. In all conditions, to motivate the bees to exit the colony, the

wick that absorbed sugar solution from a plastic bag beneath the nest box was capped for one or

two days prior to testing.

Apparatus

The 12-corridor maze that we used, modelled on that of Lehrer et al. (1995), is

diagrammed in Figure 1. Photographs are shown in Plowright et al. (2011, Fig.1). It was

constructed of grey Plexiglas® with a clear cover. From the central area (22 cm wide, 15 cm

high), 12 corridors radiated outwards. The bees entered the maze via a screen tube that

connected their colony exit hole to an entrance hole in the center of the floor of the maze. The

exit was stoppered when the colony was not in use during the experiment: bees were not allowed

to travel to and from the apparatus prior to testing. The entrance to the maze was gated during

testing sessions: bees were let into the maze individually. The corridors were 6 cm wide at their

entrance from the center of the maze and 15 cm long. The back walls were 13 cm wide.

The maze was illuminated from above by high-frequency (> 40 KHz) lighting equipment

(three Sylvania Quicktronic T8 QHE4x32T8/112 light ballasts, each with four Sylvania model

FO32/841/XP/SS/EC03 fluorescent light bulbs).

Stimuli

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139


In both experiments, the stimuli were mounted with Velcro® on the back walls of the

corridors in the maze, as shown in Figure 1.

Experiment 1

Nine corridors in the maze were empty, i.e. “Unoccupied”. The remaining three corridors

enclosed a stimulus, so they were “Occupied”. In one of these three corridors, a dead pinned

queen B. impatiens was attached to the back wall (“Occupied-Conspecific”). Bumblebees are

attracted to artificial flowers where a model bee or a dead bee have been pinned in much the

same way they are attracted to artificial flowers where other bees are already foraging

(Leadbeater & Chittka, 2007), though there is no claim here that motion cues are irrelevant in

general (indeed, they are important in defensive behaviour of honeybees (Free, 1961) and in

social learning of foraging behaviour by bumblebees (Avarguès-Weber & Chittka, 2014 a&b)).

Accordingly, we used a dead pinned bee: a dead queen bee as in Plowright et al. (2013) to

maximize the chances that it would be detected by virtue of its larger size. In nature, the times at

which workers and queens forage within a season overlap and so workers could well encounter

other queens. In another corridor was a Canadian dime (“Occupied-Coin”) and in the third, a

piece of white Styrofoam® (“Occupied-Styrofoam”) of the same diameter as the coin (18 mm),

which was the colour of steel.

Experiment 2

Two opposing corridors were blocked off and the remaining ten contained circular (6 cm

diameter) stimuli: three radial patterns consisting of four black and four white wedges, and

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162


seven concentric patterns consisting of two black and two white circles. The patterns were

printed on paper in black and white and then laminated.

Design

Experiment 1

For each of the following four conditions, 12 bees from each of the two colonies were

used: (1) “Baseline”: the colony had ad libitum access to a ball of pollen paste placed beside the

cocoons (pollen purchased from an apiarist, crushed and mixed with honey and water), though

access to sugar solution was prevented for two days prior to testing so that the bees would be

motivated to exit the colony (2) “Pollen deprivation”: To increase the level of motivation to

forage over and above the level in baseline, not only was there deprivation of sugar solution, but

pollen deprivation was superimposed, with the pollen ball being removed for 24 h prior to testing

(3) “Strong CO2”: as with baseline, but with the addition of a steady stream into the maze of a

mixture of CO2 and O2 (1:3 by volume) for the duration of the time spent in the maze by each bee

and (4) “Pure CO2”: pure carbon dioxide gas (though the maze was not gas tight so there was

some dilution). In the last two conditions, the gas was released directly into the maze through an

aperture in the lid so as to ensure that individual bees were under the influence of CO2 as they

made their pattern choices. The rate of gas flow was 1.1 - 1.3 L/min. For the first colony used,

the conditions were run in order 1-4, and for the second colony, the reverse order was used, so

that any overall effect of experimental condition could not be attributed to colony aging.

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183


Three unoccupied corridors separated each of the three occupied corridors. The positions

of the three types of occupied corridors (conspecific, coin and Styrofoam) were counterbalanced

so that across 12 bees, they appeared equally often in each of the 12 corridors in the maze.

Experiment 2

For each of the following three conditions, 20 bees were used: (1) Baseline (2) Pure CO2

and (3) Pollen deprivation. These conditions, which were run in order, are described above for

Experiment 1. The positions of the patterns were counterbalanced so that across 20 bees in each

condition, the three radial patterns appeared six times and the seven concentric patterns appeared

fourteen times in each of the ten corridors used.

Procedure

The procedure was common to both experiments. Once a worker exited the colony and

entered the maze for the first time (where the first time was also the last time), its first 20 choices

were recorded as in Plowright et al. (2013). A choice was defined as making contact with the

back wall of the corridor or the stimulus attached to it. A new choice was only recorded once

the bee had crossed the threshold of the corridor and returned to the center of the maze (in other

words, ‘dithering’ within a corridor did not count as multiple choices). Once 20 choices were

made, the bee was removed from the apparatus and killed, after which the bees in Experiment 2

were weighted on a Mettler Toledo balance model PB 303-S. In the Pure CO2 condition, some

bees (n = 7 in Experiment 1 and n = 4 in Experiment 2) became inactive for over 15 min. with

exposure to CO2 and did not complete 20 choices—they were excluded from the data set.

Testing for each condition took place for 4-8 h per day, over the course of 1-3 days.

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206


The maze was cleaned with a damp cloth between subjects to minimize any visual

evidence of a corridor having been visited. Though bumblebees can learn whether chemical

“footprints” (i.e. scent-marks) predict reward or non-reward (Saleh & Chittka, 2006), in our case

all patterns were non-rewarding and so there was no possibility of cued discriminative learning.

Statistical analyses

The data were treated as binomial proportions. Two analyses were undertaken in

Experiment 1. First, the proportion of choices for the corridor occupied by the conspecific was

compared across the 4 conditions. A logistic model, which specifies a binomial error term, was

fit to the data using SPSS 21. Subsequently, each of the choice proportions was compared to a

theoretical value of chance (1/12) using the replicated goodness-of-fit test (Sokal & Rohlf,

2012). The replicated goodness-of-fit test yields two G values, which are compared to χ2 values

in the tests of significance: GP (P for Pooled) compares group choice frequency to that expected

by chance, and GH (H for Heterogeneity) tests for individual differences. In Experiment 2, a

logistic model was used, with bee weights entered as a covariate. The G-test was used to

determine whether the proportion of choices for the radial pattern differed from a theoretical

value of chance (3/10) for each of the 3 conditions.

Results

Experiment 1: Social preferences

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229


Comparisons across conditions

Between-colony differences in the overall preference for the Occupied-Conspecific

corridor were observed. Individuals from the second colony chose it 3.5 times out of 20 on

average, which was significantly higher than the mean of 2.5 for the first colony (χ2 = 8.98, df =

1, p = .003). No interaction between colony and experimental condition, however, was detected

(χ2 = 1.17, df = 3, p = .76), and so the data from both colonies were pooled. The effect of

condition was significant (χ2 = 32.57, df = 3, p <.0001). Given that behaviour in the baseline

condition was almost indistinguishable from chance (Fig. 2 a & b), the question as to whether

both the food restriction and the CO2 manipulations were effective in changing preference is

addressed below in a comparison of those conditions with chance.

Comparisons with theoretical value of chance

The choice proportion for the Occupied-Conspecific corridor that would be expected by

chance (Fig. 2a) was 8% (1/12). The group choice proportion in the Baseline condition was no

different from chance (GP = 1.66, 1 df, p = .20), though individual differences were significant

(GH = 37.90, df = 23, p = 0.03) with one outlier making 7 out of 20 choices of the Occupied-

Conspecific corridor while the rest made 0-4 such choices.

In the Pollen deprivation condition (Fig. 2c), the preference of 14% was significantly

higher than chance (Gp = 18.01, 1 df, p < .0001). The same was true of the Strong CO2

condition (Gp =14.59, 1df, p < .0001) shown in Figure 2d. The strongest effect was observed in

the Pure CO2 condition (Gp =94.34, 1 df, p < .0001): Figure 2e shows that the proportion of

choices for the Occupied-Conspecific corridor was approximately twice as high as chance and

there was a commensurate decrease in the proportion of choices for the Unoccupied corridors.

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252


The increase in preference for occupied corridors was specific to the corridor occupied by the

conspecific: little if any change can be seen in the proportion of choices for the corridors

occupied by the coin or the Styrofoam. In all three experimental conditions, there was

significant individual variation (GH ≥ 38.81, df = 23, p < .05). In the Pure CO2 condition, two

bees showed a preference for the Occupied-Conspecific corridors as high as 50:50.

Experiment 2: Preferences for floral patterns

Comparisons across conditions

A significant effect of condition was found on preference for the radial patterns, (χ2 =

7.93, df = 2, p = .019). Again, because the choice proportions in Baseline were at chance levels,

the question of which treatments were effective in modifying behaviour are addressed below in

comparisons between group choice proportions and chance levels. Body mass (Mean = .178 g,

SD = .03 g), which was entered in the logistic model as a covariate, was not an important

explanatory variable (χ2 = 2.20, df = 1, p = .14). The interaction between body mass and

condition was not significant (χ2 = .41, df = 2, p = .81).

Comparisons with theoretical value of chance

In the Baseline condition, the choice proportion for the radial patterns was not

significantly different from a chance value of 30% (GP = 0.295, df = 1, p = .59). Figure 3 shows

that a preference emerged in the condition of Pollen deprivation (GP = 13.14, df = 1, p = .0003):

the choice proportion rose to 38%. No such preference, however, was detected in the Pure CO2

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274


condition (GP = .05, df = 1, p = .82). No individual differences were detected in any of the three

conditions (GH ≤ 18.65, df = 19).

Discussion

In general, the results of our experiments show that pattern preferences by bumblebees

leaving their nest for the first time are context specific: they are tied to variables relevant to

different functions. As such this work fits well within an ecological approach to learning and

motivation (Shettleworth, 2010) whereby specific situations trigger appropriate goal-specific

sequences of unlearned and learned behaviour patterns. Preferences for unrewarding radial

patterns over concentric patterns, which have been reported for flower-naïve bumblebees

(Simonds & Plowright, 2004; Orbán & Plowright, 2013; Plowright, Simonds & Butler, 2006) are

thought to reflect preferences for floral shapes (Lehrer et al., 1995). Such preferences might help

to guide inexperienced bees toward their first floral contact. If so, the preferences should depend

on conditions of food deprivation. Here, we found no detectable preference when the bees had

unlimited access to pollen, but a preference was created when pollen was taken away from the

colony (Experiment 2). Administering CO2, however, led to no discernible change in

preference, though the manipulation of CO2 was anything but subtle: the concentration of CO2

could not have been higher. One caveat is that while there was ample room on the scale of

measurement for an increase in preference, there was less room for a decrease, though one might

have been envisaged given that exposure to CO2 in honeybees (A. mellifera) leads to a decrease

in pollen collection (Ribbands, 1950).

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296


In colonies of bumblebees, division of labour is related to size variation, with larger

workers carrying out a larger share of the foraging duties than smaller workers (Jandt &

Dornhaus, 2009) and being more adept these tasks (Spaethe & Weidenmuller, 2002). Current

research on size variation in bumblebees has considered both its proximal causes (Couvillon et

al., 2010) and functional significance (Peat, Tucker & Goulson, 2005; Couvillon & Dornhaus,

2010). Our argument that the preference for radial patterns is linked to food gathering would

have been bolstered had larger bees been more affected by the manipulation of food availability

than smaller bees, but no interaction of our experimental manipulation with body mass was

obtained—with self-selected groups of bees that exited the colony rather than stayed in, the

range of weights was presumably restricted.

If a preference for a pattern occupied by another forager also helps to guide bees toward

their first floral contact, then it too should depend on food deprivation. It did. Pollen

deprivation, however, was not the only variable that affected preference. CO2 also had an effect,

in both concentrations that we used (Experiment 1). Perhaps the preference for corridors

occupied by a conspecific is a general stress response (see Muth, Scampini & Leonard, this

issue) to threatening situations that include both lack of food and the presence of predators. The

function of the response to CO2, however, is less clear than the function of a response to food

deprivation. Here we suggested three possibilities: (1) The increase in attraction to an occupied

stimulus may be the beginnings of an aggressive response, similar to that of individuals within

colonies that hiss and buzz in response to the vibrations and sudden increase in CO2 levels

characteristic of disruption by a predator (Kirchner & Röschard, 1999). One untested

assumption underlying this interpretation is that the aggressive motivation triggered by the CO2

was not predator specific and would lead to an increased tendency to attack any organism in the

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319


vicinity. (2) Alternatively, it may be a response, in the context of danger, to what may be

perceived as a signal of safety: an unlearned response analogous to the learned response

documented by Dawson and Chittka (2014). (3) We can not rule out the possibility that it may

even be protective behaviour whereby one bee joins another to defend herself and her sister from

a common threat. What does seem clear is that the response is selective: it was specific to

corridors occupied by another insect, and not corridors occupied by a similarly sized coin or

piece of Styrofoam. The specific physical characteristics of the insect that triggered approach

behaviour remain to be determined. Perhaps dark colour is important, since dark cotton balls

elicit more stinging in honeybees than white ones (Free, 1961). Indeed, black ping pong balls

are more likely to be attacked by bumblebees (Bombus sonorus Say) than white ping pong balls

(Visscher & Vetter, 1995). Rough texture may also be important (Free, 1961).

The mechanisms by which our variables exerted their effects on choice remain to be

determined. Pure CO2 is an anesthetic, and indeed a few bees in the pure CO2 condition in

Experiment 2 did gradually became immobile and failed to complete 20 choices, perhaps just as

much because of the decrease in O2 as the presence of CO2. The effects in our study, however,

were not simply decreases in motor activity, since choice of any corridor required the same

approach toward the back wall and we obtained groups of equal size all completing 20 choices.

The effects may be the product of increased attention to the relevant stimuli. They may reflect

memory and decision making—indeed CO2 produces retrograde amnesia in honeybees

(Beckmann, 1974) and individual decision-making in honeybees is influenced by variables, such

as being shaken, that mimic predation (Bateson, Desire, Gartside & Wright, 2011).

Having established both the effect of food deprivation on preference for radial stimuli,

and the effects of CO2 exposure and food deprivation on preference for patterns occupied by

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342


other bees, future research should harness these variables in more ecologically realistic ways. In

the future, gradations of pollen availability could be used instead of all-or-nothing. In addition,

colonies at various stages of development could be used: the effect of pollen restriction is almost

certainly specific to young colonies during periods of rapid colony growth when protein is in

high demand for the feeding of larvae (Free, 1955). The CO2 concentration could also be

brought down to levels that would be encountered in nature. We used concentrations of 25%

CO2 as well as 100%, which vastly exceed the concentration in the colony [0.2 - 6% in honeybee

hives (Nicolas & Sillans, 1989)], in the atmosphere [385 ppm in 2008 (Hansen et al., 2008)--up

from 350 ppm in 1989 (Nicolas & Sillans, 1989)] or in mammalian breath [3.5% for humans

(Kirchner & Röschard, 1999)]. In our study, the workers were also exposed to CO2 individually

in the maze whereas in nature, the influx of CO2 would not likely be experienced at the foraging

site but rather at the site of the colony. In future research, the two locations could be compared,

though prolonged CO2 exposure in the colony can lead to aberrant behaviours such as expelling

larvae (Pomeroy & Plowright, 1979) and also can affect the reproductive behaviour of the queen

(Mackensen, 1947).

Following the lead of Gould (1990), today bees are used as a model for understanding

cognition (Menzel, 2012; Menzel & Brembs, 2007). Contemporary research topics in bee-

cognition include visual categorization (Benard, Stach & Giurfa, 2006; Dyer, 2012), timing

(Boisvert & Sherry, 2006; Craig et al., 2014), spatial cognition (Brown & Demas, 1994; Cheng,

2000), numerical cognition (Pahl, Si & Zhang, 2013), concept learning (Brown & Sayde, 2013;

Giurfa et al., 2001; Gould 2002), picture-object correspondence (Thompson & Plowright, 2014)

and problem solving (Mirwan & Kevan, 2014). Particularly relevant here is research on social

learning and cognition (reviewed by Sherry & Strang, 2014) which have been neglected until

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365


recently (Dukas, 2008). Much of this cognition, however, is built upon some “pre-functional”

behaviour (Hogan, 1994): the building blocks of learning (Tinbergen, 1951). The behaviour that

occurs prior to experience with the goals it is designed to attain remains poorly understood for

bees. Prior research has documented some of the variables regarding the visual appearance of

flowers that influence this pre-functional behaviour (reviewed by Orbán & Plowright, 2014), and

this paper documents some of the variables that affect the internal state of the bees. Now that

the ‘cognitive revolution’ has become mainstream in bee behaviour, there may be something to

be gained by stepping back to consider the details of how bees do what they do when they are

met with the world outside their colony for the first time.

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375


References

Avarguès-Weber, A., & Chittka, L. (2014a). Observational conditioning in flower choice

copying by bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): Influence of observer distance and

demonstrator movement. PLOS ONE, 9: e88415.

Avarguès-Weber, A., & Chittka, L. (2014b). Local enhancement or stimulus enhancement?

Bumblebee social learning results in a specific pattern of flower preference. Animal

Behaviour 97, 185-191.

Bateson, M., Desire, S., Gartside, S.E., & Wright, G.A. (2011). Agitated honeybees exhibit

pessimistic cognitive biases. Current Biology, 21, 1070-1073.

Baude M., Danchin É., Mugabo M. & Dajoz I. (2011). Conspecifics as informers and

competitors: An experimental study in foraging bumble-bees. Proceedings of the Royal

Society B, 278, 2806-2813.

Beckmann, H. E. (1974). The damaging effect of supercooling, narcosis, and stress on memory

of the honey bee. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 94, 249-266.

Benard, J., Stach, S., & Giurfa, M. (2006). Categorization of visual stimuli in the honeybee Apis

mellifera. Animal Cognition, 9, 257-270.

Boisvert, M. J., & Sherry, D. F. (2006). Interval timing by an invertebrate, the bumble bee

Bombus impatiens. Current Biology, 16, 1636-1640.

Brown, M. F., & Demas, G. E. (1994). Evidence for spatial working memory in honeybees Apis

mellifera. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 344-352.

Brown, M. F., & Sayde, J. M. (2013). Same/different discrimination by bumblebee colonies.

Animal Cognition, 16, 117-125.

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397


Cheng, K. (2000). How honeybees find a place: Lessons from a simple mind. Animal Learning

& Behavior, 28, 1-15.

Couvillon, M. J., & Dornhaus, A. (2010). Small worker bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) are

hardier against starvation than their larger sisters. Insectes Sociaux, 57, 193-197.

Couvillon, M. J., Jandt, J. M., Duong, N. H. I., & Dornhaus, A. (2010). Ontogeny of worker

body size distribution in bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) colonies. Ecological

Entomology, 35, 424-435.

Craig, D. P. A., Varnon, C. A., Sokolowski, M. B., Wells, H., & Abramson, C. I. (2014). An

assessment of fixed interval timing in free-flying honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica):

An analysis of individual performance. PLOS ONE, 9, e101262.

Dawson, E. H., Avarguès-Weber, A., Chittka, L., & Leadbeater, E. (2013). Learning by

observation emerges from simple associations in an insect model. Current Biology, 23,

727-730.

Dawson, E. H., & Chittka, L. (2012). Conspecific and heterospecific information use in

bumblebees. PLOS ONE, 7, e31444.

Dawson, E. H., & Chittka, L. (2014). Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) use social information as

an indicator of safety in dangerous environments. Proceedings of the Royal Society B,

281, 1-5.

Dukas, R. 2008. Evolutionary biology of insect learning. Annual Review of Entomology, 53,

145-160

Dyer, A. G. (2012). The mysterious cognitive abilities of bees: Why models of visual processing

need to consider experience and individual differences in animal performance. Journal

of Experimental Biology, 215, 387-395.

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420


Free, J.B. (1955). The division of labour within bumblebee colonies. Insectes Sociaux, 2, 195-

212.

Free, J. B. (1961). The stimuli releasing the stinging response of honeybees. .Animal

Behaviour, 9, 193-196.

Giurfa, M., Zhang, S., Jenett , A., Menzel, R., & Srinivasan, M. V. (2001). The concepts of

‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ in an insect. Nature, 410, 930-933.

Gould, J. L. (1990). Honey bee cognition. Cognition, 37, 83-103.

Gould, J. L. (2002). Can honey bees create cognitive maps? In Bekoff, M., Allen, C. &

Burghardt, G. M. (Eds). The cognitive animal (pp. 41-45). Cambridge, Massachussets:

MIT Press.

Goulson D. (2010). Bumblebees: Behaviour, ecology, and conservation. (2nd ed). New York:

Oxford University Press. 317 pp

Grüter, C., & Leadbeater, E. (2014). Insights from insects about adaptive social information use.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 177-184.

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani, M., .

Raymo, M., Royer, D. L., & Zachos, J. C. (2008). Target atmospheric CO2: Where

should humanity aim? Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, 217-231.

Hogan, J. A. (1994). Structure and development of behavior systems. Psychonomic Bulletin and

Review, 1, 439-450.

Jandt, J. M., & Dornhaus, A. (2009). Spatial organization and division of labour in the

bumblebee Bombus impatiens. Animal Behaviour, 77, 641-651.

Kawaguchi, L. G., Ohashi, K., & Toquenaga, Y. (2006). Do bumble bees save time when

choosing novel flowers by following conspecifics? Functional Ecology, 20, 239-244.

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443


Kikuchi, T. (1963). Studies on the coaction among insects visiting flowers. III Dominance

relationship among flower-visiting flies, bees and butterflies. Science Reports of Tohoku

University - Fourth Series: Biology, 29, 1-8.

Kirchner, W. H., & Röschard, J. (1999). Hissing in bumblebees: an interspecies defence signal.

Insectes Sociaux, 46, 239-243.

Leadbeater, E., & Chittka, L. (2007). The dynamics of social learning in an insect model, the

bumblebee (Bombus terrestris). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 1789-1796.

Leadbeater, E., & Chittka, L. (2009). Bumble-bees learn the value of social cues through

experience. Biology Letters, 5, 310-312.

Lehrer, M., Horridge, G. A., Zhang, S. W. & Gadagkar. R (1995). Shape vision in bees: Innate

preference for flower-like patterns. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,

347, 123-137.

Mackensen, O. (1947). Effect of carbon dioxide on initial oviposition of artificially inseminated

and virgin queen bees. Journal of Economic Entomology, 40, 344-349.

Menzel, R. (2012). The honeybee as a model for understanding the basis of cognition. Nature

Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 758-768.

Menzel, R., & Brembs, B. (2007). Cognition in invertebrates. In J. H. Kaas (Ed.) Evolution of

nervous systems, Vol. II: Evolution of nervous systems in invertebrates (pp. 403–422).

Oxford: Academic Press.

Mirwan, H. B., & Kevan, P. G. (2014). Problem solving by worker bumblebees Bombus

impatiens (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Animal Cognition, doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0737-0

Muth, F., Scampini, A. V., & Leonard, A. S. (this issue.). The effects of acute stress on learning

and memory in bumble bees.

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466


Nicolas, G., & Sillans, D. (1989). Immediate and latent effects of carbon dioxide on insects.

Annual Review of Entomology, 34, 97-116.

Orbán, L. L., & Plowright, C. M. S. (2013). The effect of flower-like and non-flower-like visual

properties on choice of unrewarding patterns by bumblebees. Naturwissenschaften, 100,

621-631.

Orbán, L. L., & Plowright, C. M. S. (2014). Getting to the start line: how bumblebees and

honeybees are visually guided towards their first floral contact. Insectes Sociaux doi:

10.1007/s00040-014-0366-2

Pahl, M., Si, A., & Zhang, S. (2013). Numerical cognition in bees and other insects. Frontiers

in Psychology, 4, 162.

Peat, J., Tucker, J., & Goulson, D. (2005). Does intraspecific size variation in bumblebees allow

colonies to efficiently exploit different flowers? Ecological Entomology, 30, 176-181.

Plowright, C. M. S., Evans, S. A., Chew Leung, J., & Collin, C. A. (2011). The preference for

symmetry in flower naïve and not-so-naïve bumblebees. Learning and Motivation, 42,

76-83.

Plowright, C. M. S., Ferguson, K. A., Jellen, S. L., Xu, V., Service, E. W., & Dookie, A. L.

(2013). Bumblebees occupy: When foragers do and do not use the presence of others to

first find food. Insectes Sociaux, 60, 517-524.

Plowright, C. M. S., Simonds, V. M. & Butler, M. A. (2006). How bumblebees first

find flowers: Habituation of visual pattern preferences, spontaneous recovery

and dishabituation. Learning and Motivation, 37, 66-78.

Pomeroy, N., & Plowright, R. C. (1979). Larval ejection following narcosis of bumble bees

(Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 52, 215-217.

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489


Ribbands, C. R. (1950). Changes in the behaviour of honey-bees following their recovery from

anaesthesia. Journal of Experimental Biology, 27, 302-310.

Saleh, N., & Chittka, L. (2006). The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific

chemical signals. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 215-220.

Sherry, D. F., & Strang, C. G. (2014). Contrasting styles in cognition and behaviour in

bumblebees and honeybees. Behavioural processes,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.005

Shettleworth, S.J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford

University Press. 720 pp.

Simonds V. & Plowright C. M. S. (2004). How do bumblebees first find flowers? Unlearned

approach responses and habituation. Animal Behaviour, 67, 379-386

Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, J .F. (2012). Biometry. (4th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.

Spaethe, J., & Weidenmüller, A. (2002). Size variation and foraging rate in bumblebees (Bombus

terrestris). Insectes Sociaux, 49, 142-146.

Tepedino, V. J., & Parker, F. D. (1981). The effect of floral occupancy on the foraging of

flower-visiting insects. Psyche, 88, 321-330.

Thompson, E. L., & Plowright, C. M. S. (2014). How images may or may not represent flowers:

Picture-object correspondence in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens)? Animal Cognition.

doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0733-4

Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. London: Oxford University Press.

Visscher, K. P., & Vetter, R. S. (1995). Smoke and target color effects on defensive behavior in

yellow jacket wasps and bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Vespidae, Apidae) with a

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511


description of an electronic attack monitor. Journal of Economic Entomology, 88, 579-

583.

512

513


Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a research grant to C.M.S.P. from the Natural Sciences

and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank Daniel Dostie for his help with the

graphics and Levente Orbán for his assistance with the videos. Vicki Xu and Emma Thompson

provided constructive comments on the manuscript. We also thank Koppert Canada for their

generosity in donating the bumblebee colonies for our research.

514

515

516

517

518

519

520


Supplementary materials

Video 1. Film clip of one bumblebee landing on an unrewarding artificial flower that is already

occupied by another bee. The grappling of the two bees together is characteristic of aggressive

interactions.

Video 2. Film clip of one bumblebee landing on an unrewarding artificial flower that is already

occupied by another bee. The raising of the leg by the bee that was on the flower first is

characteristic of defensive behaviour.

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533


Figure captions

Fig. 1. Radial maze and connected hive box. Patterns were mounted vertically on the walls of

the corridors in the positions marked with a red circle. Reproduced from Plowright et al. (2013),

with kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media.

Fig. 2. Choice proportions, pooled for two colonies in Experiment 1. There were 9 Unoccupied

corridors and 3 Occupied (with Conspecific, Styrofoam or Coin). In each condition, 12 bees per

colony were given 20 choices each. (a) Theoretical proportions of chance (b-e) Observed

proportions under four conditions (baseline, pollen deprivation, Strong CO2 and Pure CO2.

* The choice proportion for the Occupied-Conspecific corridor was significantly greater than a

chance value of 8%.

Fig. 3. Mean choice frequencies of radial and concentric patterns in Experiment 2 with standard

error bars. In each condition, 20 bees were given 20 choices in a maze where 3 corridors

contained a radial pattern and 7 contained a concentric pattern.

* Choice proportion significantly different from a chance value of 30%.

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550


551

552


553

554

555

556


557

Documents

ruor.uottawa.ca€¦ · Web viewOnce 20 choices were made, the bee was removed from the apparatus and killed, after which the bees in Experiment 2 were weighted on a Mettler Toledo