A population comparison of the strength and persistence of innate colour preference and learning speed in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris
- 555 Downloads
Studies of innate colour preference and learning ability have focused on differences at the species level, rather than variation among populations of a single species. Initial strength and persistence of colour preferences are likely to affect colour choices of naïve flower visitors. We therefore study the influence of both the strength and persistence of innate colour preference (for blue) on an operant learning task (associating food reward with yellow flowers) in two populations of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. We found that both strength and persistence of blue preference differed significantly between populations: B. terrestris dalmatinus had a weaker and less persistent blue preference than B. terrestris audax. These differences in preference also influenced learning performance. Considering only landing behaviours, one-trial learning occurred in the majority (73%) of bees, and was achieved sooner in B. terrestris dalmatinus because of its weaker blue preference. However, compared to landing behaviours the relative frequency of approach flights to rewarding and unrewarding flower types changed more slowly with task experience in both populations. When considering both approaches and landings, the rate of learning, following the first rewarded learning trial, was faster in B. terrestris audax than B. terrestris dalmatinus. However, the net effects of population differences in blue preference and learning dynamics result in similar final levels of task performance. Our results provide new evidence of behavioural differences among isolated populations within a single species, and raise intriguing questions about the ecological significance and adaptive nature of colour preference.
KeywordsBumble bee Cognitive ecology Floral preference Flower colour Foraging behaviour Learning speed Sensory bias
We would like to thank Oscar Ramos Rodríguez for his assistance with colony rearing, maintenance and testing bees and Zainab Afzal, Chris Armstrong, Denise Barrow, Samiya Batul, Rosa Hardt, Amanda Hill, Sibel Ihsan, Anna Lo, Natalia Lopez, Nicole Milligan, Rohini Simbodyal, Ralph Stelzer, Matthew Wallace and Tulay Yilmaz for their help with the experiments. This study was supported by a Queen Mary College Scholarship and University of London Central Research Fund grant (CRFT1C7R) awarded to TCI and an NERC grant (NER/A/S/2003/00469) awarded to LC and NER. The experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.
- Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee Economics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Ings TC, Raine NE, Chittka L (2005) Mating preference in the commercially imported bumblebee species Bombus terrestris in Britain (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Entomol Gen 28:233–238Google Scholar
- Lauer J, Lindauer M (1973) Die Beteiligung von Lernprozessen bei der Orientierung. Forts Zool 21:349–370Google Scholar
- Marshall J (1935) On the sensitivity of the chemoreceptors on the antenna and fore-tarsus of the honey-bee, Apis mellifica L. J Exp Biol 12:17–26Google 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
- Raine NE, Chittka L (2005) Comparison of flower constancy and foraging performance in three bumblebee species (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus). Entomol Gen 28:81–89Google Scholar
- Raine NE, Ings TC, Ramos-Rodríguez O, Chittka L (2006b) Intercolony variation in learning performance of a wild British bumblebee population (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus terrestris audax). Entomol Gen 28:241–256Google Scholar
- Rasmont P, Coppée A, Michez D, de Meulemeester T (2008) An overview of the Bombus terrestris (L. 1758) subspecies (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ann Soc Entomol Fr 44:243–250Google Scholar
- Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of classical conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning II: current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99Google Scholar