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
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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.
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
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
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
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
Collett TS (1993) Route following and the retrieval of memories in insects. Comp Biochem Physiol 104A:709–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comba L (1999) Patch use by bumblebees (Hymenoptera Apidae): temperature, wind, flower density and traplining. Ethol Ecol Evol 11:243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Garrison JSE, Gass CL (1999) Response of a traplining hummingbird to changes in nectar availability. Behav Ecol 10:714–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Gill FB (1988) Trapline foraging by hermit hummingbirds—competition for an undefended, renewable resource. Ecology 69:1933–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulson D (2000) Why do pollinators visit proportionally fewer flowers in large patches? Oikos 91:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar