, Volume 151, Issue 4, pp 719–730 | Cite as

Traplining in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens): a foraging strategy’s ontogeny and the importance of spatial reference memory in short-range foraging

  • Nehal Saleh
  • Lars Chittka
Behavioural Ecology


To test the relative importance of long-term and working spatial memories in short-range foraging in bumblebees, we compared the performance of two groups of bees. One group foraged in a stable array of six flowers for 40 foraging bouts, thereby enabling it to establish a long-term memory of the array, and adjust its spatial movements accordingly. The other group was faced with an array that changed between (but not within) foraging bouts, and thus had only access to a working memory of the flowers that had been visited. Bees in the stable array started out sampling a variety of routes, but their tendency to visit flowers in a repeatable, stable order (“traplining”) increased drastically with experience. These bees used shorter routes and converged on four popular paths. However, these routes were mainly formed through linking pairs of flowers by near-neighbour movements, rather than attempting to minimize overall travel distance. Individuals had variations to a primary sequence, where some bees used a major sequence most often, followed by a minor less used route, and others used two different routes with equal frequency. Even though bees foraging in the spatially randomized array had access to both spatial working memory and scent marks, this manipulation greatly disrupted foraging efficiency, mainly via an increase in revisitation to previously emptied flowers and substantially longer search times. Hence, a stable reference frame greatly improves foraging even for bees in relatively small arrays of flowers.


Cognition Navigation Systematic foraging Foraging theory Travelling salesman problem 



We wish to thank K. Ohashi, J. D. Thomson for providing software, J. Gurnell, S. Le Comber, N. E. Raine, T. C. Ings and Elli Leadbeater for comments on the manuscript and advice on statistics. This study was funded by a Central Research Fund (University of London) to N. S. We would also like to thank two anonymous referees whose input greatly improved the manuscript.


  1. Ackerman JD, Mesler MR, Lu KL, Montalvo AM (1982) Food-foraging behavior of male Euglossini (Hymenoptera: Apidae): vagabonds or trapliners? Biotropica 14:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown MF, Moore JA, Brown CH, Langheld KD (1997) The existence and extent of spatial working memory ability in honeybees. Anim Learn Behav 25:473–484Google Scholar
  3. Chittka L, Kunze J, Shipman C, Buchmann SL (1995) The significance of landmarks for path integration of homing honey bee foragers. Naturwissenschaften 82:341–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chittka L, Gumbert A, Kunze J (1997) Foraging dynamics of bumle bees: correlates of movements within and between plant species. Behav Ecol 8:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collett TS (1993) Route following and the retrieval of memories in insects. Comp Biochem Physiol 104A:709–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comba L (1999) Patch use by bumblebees (Hymenoptera Apidae): temperature, wind, flower density and traplining. Ethol Ecol Evol 11:243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies NB, Houston AI (1981) Owners and satellites—the economics of territory defense in the pied wagtail, Motacilla alba. J Anim Ecol 50:157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garber PA (1988) Foraging decisions during nectar feeding by tamarin monkeys (Saguinus mystax and Saguinus fuscicollis, Callitrichidae, Primates) in Amazonian Peru. Biotropica 20:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garrison JSE, Gass CL (1999) Response of a traplining hummingbird to changes in nectar availability. Behav Ecol 10:714–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilbert L (1980) Ecological consequences of a coevolved mutualism between butterflies and plants. In: Gilbert L, Raven P (eds) Coevolution of animals and plants. University of Texas Press, Austin, Tex., pp 210–231Google Scholar
  11. Gill FB (1988) Trapline foraging by hermit hummingbirds—competition for an undefended, renewable resource. Ecology 69:1933–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goulson D (2000) Why do pollinators visit proportionally fewer flowers in large patches? Oikos 91:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janzen DH (1971) Euglossine bees as long-distance pollinators of tropical plants. Science 171:203–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kenney JF (1967) Mathematics of statistics. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  15. Lemke TO (1984) Foraging ecology of the long-nosed bat, Glossophaga soricina, with respect to resource availability. Ecology 65:538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Makino TT, Sakai S (2004) Findings on spatial foraging patterns of bumblebees (Bombus ignitus) from a bee-tracking experiment in a net cage. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manning A (1956) Some aspects of the foraging behavior of bumble-bees. Behaviour 9:164–201Google Scholar
  18. Menzel R, Geiger K, Joerges J, Müller U, Chittka L (1998) Bees travel novel homeward routes by integrating separately acquired vector memories. Anim Behav 55:139–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Menzel R et al (2005) Honey bees navigate according to a map-like spatial memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:3040–3045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Osborne JL et al (1999) A landscape-scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. J Appl Ecol 36:519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reid RA, Reid AK (2005) Route finding by rats in an open arena. Behav Process 68:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ribbands CR (1949) The foraging method of individual honey-bees. J Anim Ecol 18:47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saleh N, Ohashi K, Thomson J, Chittka L (2006) Facultative use of repellent scent mark in foraging bumblebees: complex Vs simple flowers. Anim Behav 71:847–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saleh N, Chittka L. The importance of experiance in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Spaethe J, Chittka L (2003) Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. J Exp Biol 206:3447–3453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomson JD (1996) Trapline foraging by bumblebees. I. Persistence of flight-path geometry. Behav Ecol 7:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomson JD, Maddison WP, Plowright RC (1982) Behavior of bumble bee pollinators on Aralia hispida Vent. (Araliaceae). Oecologia 54:326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomson JD, Peterson SC, Harder LD (1987) Response of traplining bumble bees to competition experiments: shifts in feeding location and efficiency. Oecologia 71:295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomson JD, Slatkin M, Thomson BA (1997) Trapline foraging by bumble bees. II. Definition and detection from sequence data. Behav Ecol 8:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R (2000) Foraging distances of Bombus muscorum, Bombus lapidarius, and Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera, Apidae). J Insect Behav 13:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waterman MS, Jones R (1990) Consensus methods for DNA and protein-sequence alignment. Methods Enzymol 183:221–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams NM, Thomson JD (1998) Trapline foraging by bumble bees. III. Temporal patterns of visitation and foraging success at single plants. Behav Ecol 9:612–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations