The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals
- 267 Downloads
Foraging bumblebees scent mark flowers with hydrocarbon secretions. Several studies have found these scent marks act as a repellent to bee foragers. This was thought to minimize the risk of visiting recently depleted flowers. Some studies, however, have found a reverse, attractive effect of scent marks left on flowers. Do bees mark flowers with different scents, or could the same scent be interpreted differently depending on the bees’ previous experience with reward levels in flowers? We use a simple experimental design to investigate if the scent marks can become attractive when bees forage on artificial flowers that remain rewarding upon the bees’ return after having depleted them. We contrast this with bees trained in the more natural scenario where revisits to recently emptied flowers are unrewarding. The bees’ association between scent mark and reward value was tested with flowers scent marked from the same source. We find that the bees’ experience with the level of reward determines how the scent mark is interpreted: the same scent can act as both an attractant and a repellent. How experience and learning influence the interpretation of the meaning of chemical signals deposited by animals for communication has rarely been investigated.
KeywordsContext learning Interference Cognition Pheromone Communication Repellent Attractant
This study was funded by a Westfield Trust Research Studentship from Queen Mary College to N.S. Experiments comply with the current laws of the United Kingdom.
- Chittka L (1998) Sensorimotor learning in bumblebees: long term retention and reversal training. J Exp Biol 201:515–524Google Scholar
- Chittka L, Geiger K, Kunze J (1995) Influences of landmark sequences on distance estimation of honeybees. In: Elsner N, Menzel R (eds) Proceedings of the 23rd Goettingen Neurobiology Conference, Thieme, Stuttgart, p 27Google Scholar
- Free JB, Williams IH (1983) Scent-marking of flowers by honeybees. J Apic Res 22:86–90Google Scholar
- Harrington FH (1981) Urine-marking and caching behavior in the wolf. Behaviour 76:280–289Google Scholar
- Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Menzel R (1985) Learning in honey bees in an ecological and behavioral context. In: Hölldobler B, Lindauer M (eds) Experimental behavioral ecology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 55–74Google Scholar
- Sakagami SF, Roubik DW, Zucchi R (1993) Ethology of the robber stingless bee, Lestrimelitta-Limao (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Sociobiology 21:237–277Google Scholar
- Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honey bee colonies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Thomson JD, Chittka L (2001) Pollinator individuality: when does it matter? In: Chittka L, Thomson JD (eds) Cognitive ecology of pollination. University Press, Cambridge, pp 191–213Google Scholar
- Williams CS, Poppy GM (1997) Responses of individual honeybees to artificial feeders visited by themselves and to feeders visited by hivemates. J Apic Res 36:105–108Google Scholar