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

• Published in: Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 2009-11, Vol.64 (1), p.135-148
• Main Authors: Drezner-Levy, Tamar, Smith, Brian H, Shafir, Sharoni
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal behavior; Animal cognition; Animal Ecology; Apis mellifera; Bees; Behavioral Sciences; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Experimentation; Forage; Foraging; Honey; Honey bees; Insect behavior; Insect colonies; Insect pollination; Learning; Life Sciences; Nectar; Odors; Original Paper; Pollen; Zoology
• ISSN: 0340-5443; 1432-0762
• DOI: 10.1007/s00265-009-0829-z

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.