Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 55–60 | Cite as

Honeybees learn floral odors while receiving nectar from foragers within the hive

  • Walter M. Farina
  • Christoph Grüter
  • Luis Acosta
  • Sofía Mc Cabe
Short Communication

Abstract

Recent studies showed that nectar odors brought back by honeybee foragers can be learned associatively inside the hive. In the present study, we focused on the learning abilities of bees, which directly interact via trophallaxis with the incoming nectar foragers: the workers that perform nectar-receiving tasks inside the hive. Workers that have received food directly from foragers coming back from a feeder offering either unscented or scented sugar solution [phenylacetaldehyde (PHE) or nonanal diluted] were captured from two observational hives, and their olfactory memories were tested using the proboscis extension response paradigm. Bees that have received scented solution from incoming foragers showed significantly increased response frequencies for the corresponding solution odor in comparison with those that have received unscented solution. No differences in the response frequencies were found between food odors and colonies. The results indicate that first-order receivers learn via trophallaxis the association between the scent and the sugar solution transferred by incoming foragers. The implications of these results should be considered at three levels: the operational cohesion of bees involved in foraging-related tasks, the information propagation inside the hive related to the floral type exploited, and the putative effect of these memories on future preferences for resources.

Keywords

Honeybees Floral odorants Foragers Phenylacetaldehyde Nonanal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to A. Arenas and H. Verna for their technical assistance and to one anonymous referee for the helpful comments on the earlier versions of the manuscript. This study was supported by funds from ANPCYT (01-12319) and the University of Buenos Aires (X 036) to WMF. CG is supported by the VDRB, commission for travel grants of the SANW, Dr. De Giacomi Stiftung, Basler Stiftung für biologische Forschung and Berner Hochschulstiftung. The present study complies with the current laws of the state country in which experiments were performed.

References

  1. Beekman M (2005) How long will honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) be stimulated by scent to revisit past-profitable forage sites? J Comp Physiol A 191:1115–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouton ME, Moody EW (2004) Memory processes in classical conditioning. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 28:663–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bitterman ME, Menzel R, Fietz A, Schafer S (1983) Classical-conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Psychol 97:107–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farina WM, Wainselboim AJ (2001) Thermographic recordings show that honeybees may receive nectar from foragers even during short trophallactic contacts. Insectes Soc 48:360–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farina WM, Grüter C, Diaz PC (2005) Social learning of floral odors inside the honeybee hive. Proc Biol Sci 273:1923–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gil M, De Marco R (2005) Olfactory learning by means of trophallaxis in Apis mellifera. J Exp Biol 208:671–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goyret J, Farina WM (2005) Non-random nectar unloading interactions between foragers and their receivers in the honeybee hive. Naturwissenschaften 92:440–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grüter C, Acosta LE, Farina WM (2006) Propagation of olfactory information within the honeybee hive. Behav Ecol and Sociobiol 60:707–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guerrieri F, Schubert M, Sandoz JC, Giurfa M (2005) Perceptual and neural olfactory similarity in honeybees. PLoS Biol 3(4):e60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson DL, Wenner AM (1966) A relationship between conditioning and communication in honey bees. Anim Behav 14:261–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knudsen JT, Tollsten L, Bergstrom LG (1993) Floral scents—a checklist of volatile compounds isolated by headspace techniques. Phytochemistry 33:253–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Menzel R (1999) Memory dynamics in the honeybee. J Comp Physiol A 185:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ribbands CR (1954) Communication between honeybees: the response of crop-attached bees to the scent of their crop. Proc R Entomol Soc Lond A 29:141–144Google Scholar
  14. Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Sokal R, Rohlf F (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. von Frisch K (1919) Über den Geruchsinn der Biene und seine blütenbiologische Bedeutung. Zool Jahrb 37:2–238Google Scholar
  17. von Frisch K (1967) The dance language and orientation in honey bees. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Wenner AM, Wells PH, Johnson DL (1969) Honey bee recruitment to food sources: olfaction or language? Science 164:84–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter M. Farina
    • 1
  • Christoph Grüter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Luis Acosta
    • 1
  • Sofía Mc Cabe
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Grupo de Estudio de Insectos Sociales, IFIBYNE-CONICETUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Pabellón II, Ciudad Universitaria (C1428EHA)Buenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Division of Behavioural EcologyUniversity of BernHinterkappelenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations