Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 157, Issue 1, pp 67–71 | Cite as

Conditioned responding to magnetic fields by honeybees

  • Michael M. Walker
  • M. E. Bitterman


Individual honeybees were trained in two experiments to come for sucrose solution to a target set on a shelf before an open laboratory window. On some visits, the target was presented in the ambient geomagnetic field, and on other visits in a field modified in the vicinity of the target by passing a direct current through a coil under the shelf. The target contained 50% sucrose when it was in one of the two fields and 20% sucrose when it was in the other. Tested subsequently with a pair of targets, one in the ambient field, one in the modified field, and both containing tap water, the animals significantly preferred the target in the field in which they had been given the 50% sucrose during training. Four modified fields, produced with different coils and currents, were discriminated equally well from the ambient field, and performance was as good when the 50% sucrose was given in the ambient field as when it was given in the modified field. Data are provided also to illustrate the excellent discriminative performance attainable when two targets are presented on each training visit — one in a modified field, the other in the ambient field — and choice of one is rewarded with 50% sucrose while choice of the other is punished with mild electric shock. Our results show that foragers attend to magnetic stimuli at the feeding site and that discriminative training techniques are appropriate for the study of magnetoreception and its mechanism in honeybees.


Magnetic Field Sucrose Direct Current Sucrose Solution Electric Shock 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bitterman ME (1976) Incentive contrast in honeybees. Science 192:380–382Google Scholar
  2. Bitterman ME, Menzel R, Fietz A, SchÄfer S (1983) Classical conditioning of proboscis-extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Psychol 97:107–119Google Scholar
  3. Bookman M (1977) Sensitivity of the homing pigeon to an earth-strength magnetic field. Nature 267:340–342Google Scholar
  4. Couvillon PA, Bitterman ME (1980) Some phenomena of associative learning in honeybees. J Comp Physiol Psychol 94:878–885Google Scholar
  5. Couvillon PA, Bitterman ME (1982) Compound conditioning in honeybees. J Comp Physiol Psychol 96:192–199Google Scholar
  6. Couvillon PA, Bitterman ME (1984) The overlearning-reversal effect and successive negative contrast in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Psychol 98:100–109Google Scholar
  7. Couvillon PA, Klosterhalfen S, Bitterman ME (1983) Analysis of overshadowing in honeybees. J Comp Psychol 97:154–166Google Scholar
  8. De Jong D (1982) The orientation of comb-building by honeybees. J Comp Physiol 147:495–501Google Scholar
  9. Frisch K von (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Gould JL (1980) The case for magnetic sensitivity in birds and bees (such as it is). Am Sci 68:256–267Google Scholar
  11. Gould JL, Kirschvink JL, Deffeyes KS (1978) Bees have magnetic remanence. Science 201:1026–1028Google Scholar
  12. Gould JL, Kirschvink JL, Deffeyes KS, Brines ML (1980) Orientation of demagnetized bees. J Exp Biol 86:1–7Google Scholar
  13. Jungerman RL, Rosenblum B (1980) Magnetic induction for the sensing of magnetic fields by animals — an analysis. J Theor Biol 87:25–32Google Scholar
  14. Kirschvink JL (1981) The horizontal magnetic dance of the honeybee is compatible with a single-domain ferromagnetic magnetoreceptor. BioSystems 14:193–203Google Scholar
  15. Kirschvink JL, Gould JL (1981) Biogenic magnetite as a basis for magnetic field sensitivity in animals. BioSystems 13:181–201Google Scholar
  16. Kirschvink JL, Walker MM (in press) Particle-size considerations for magnetite-based magnetoreceptors. In: Kirschvink JL, Jones DS, MacFadden BJ (eds) Magnetite biomineralization and magnetoreception in living organisms: A new biomagnetism. Plenum, New YorksGoogle Scholar
  17. Klosterhalfen S, Fischer W, Bitterman ME (1978) Modification of attention in honeybees. Science 201:1241–1243Google Scholar
  18. Kreithen ML, Keeton WT (1974) Attempts to condition homing pigeons to magnetic stimuli. J Comp Physiol 91:355–362Google Scholar
  19. Lindauer M (1977) Recent advances in the orientation and learning of honeybees. Proc XV Internat Congr Entomol, pp 450–460Google Scholar
  20. Lindauer M, Martin H (1972) Magnetic effects on dancing bees. In: Galler SR et al. (eds) Animal orientation and navigation. US Gov't Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin H, Lindauer M (1977) Der Einfluss des Erdmagnetfelds auf die Schwereorientierung der Honigbiene (Apis mellifica). J Comp Physiol 122:145–187Google Scholar
  22. Menzel R (1968) Das GedÄchtnis der Honigbiene für Spektralfarben: I. kurzzeitiges und langzeitiges Behalten. Z Vergl Physiol 60:82–102Google Scholar
  23. Menzel R, Bitterman ME (1983) Learning by honeybees in an unnatural situation. In: Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neuroethology and behavioral physiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 206–215Google Scholar
  24. Sigurdson JE (1981) Automated discrete-trials technique of appetitive conditioning in honeybees. Behav Res Meth Instr 13:1–10Google Scholar
  25. Towne WF, Gould JL (in press) Magnetic field sensitivity in honeybees. In: Kirschvink JL, Jones DS, Mac Fadden BJ (eds) Magnetite biomineralization and magnetoreception in living organisms: A new biomagnetism. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael M. Walker
    • 1
  • M. E. Bitterman
    • 1
  1. 1.Békésy Laboratory of NeurobiologyUniversity of HawaiiHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations