Free-flying honeybees extrapolate relational size rules to sort successively visited artificial flowers in a realistic foraging situation
- 651 Downloads
Learning and applying relational concepts to solve novel tasks is considered an indicator of cognitive-like ability. It requires the abstraction of relational concepts to different objects independent to the physical nature of the individual objects. Recent research has revealed the honeybee’s ability to rapidly learn and manipulate relations between visual stimuli such as ‘same/different’, ‘above/below’, or ‘larger/smaller’ despite having a miniature-sized brain. While honeybees can solve problems using rule-based relative size comparison, it remains unresolved as to whether bees can apply size rules when stimuli are encountered successively, which requires reliance on working memory for stimuli comparison. Additionally, the potential ability of bees to extrapolate acquired information to novel sizes beyond training sets remains to be investigated. We tested whether individual free-flying honeybees could learn ‘larger/smaller’ size rules when visual stimuli were presented successively, and whether such rules could then be extrapolated to novel stimulus sizes. Honeybees were individually trained to a set of four sizes such that individual elements might be correct, or incorrect, depending upon the alternative stimulus. In a learning test, bees preferred the correct size relation for their respective learning group. Bees were also able to successfully extrapolate the learnt relation during transfer tests by maintaining the correct size relationships when considering either two smaller, or two larger, novel stimulus sizes. This performance demonstrates that an insect operating in a complex environment has sufficient cognitive capacity to learn rules that can be abstracted to novel problems. We discuss the possible learning mechanisms which allow their success.
KeywordsExtrapolation Concept learning Working memory Foraging Cognition Apis mellifera
We thank Assoc. Prof. Devi Stuart-Fox for her comments on multiple drafts of the manuscript. We thank Dr. Mani Shrestha for his help measuring spectral properties of the stimuli. Adrian G Dyer acknowledges Australian Research Council (ARC) 130100015. We also wish to acknowledge the three anonymous reviewers and Professor Ken Cheng for their expert advice on previous versions of the manuscript.
Scarlett Howard was involved in the design of the experiment, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and drafted the manuscript. Aurore Avarguès-Weber was involved in the experimental design, interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript. Jair Garcia was involved in the data analysis and drafting of the manuscript. Adrian Dyer was involved in the design of the experiment, data collection, data analysis, and drafting the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for submission.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There were no conflicts of interest.
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
This video shows a honeybee at 0.25× original speed aborting a choice for a 3 × 3 cm stimulus in the learning test at 3.73 s, aborting a choice for a 1 × 1 cm stimulus in the transfer test to smaller stimuli at 10.13 s, and aborting a choice for a 7 × 7 cm stimulus during the transfer test to larger stimuli at 21.9 s (MP4 2899 kb)
- Avarguès-Weber A, d’Amaro D, Metzler M, Dyer AG (2014) Conceptualization of relative size by honeybees. Front Behav Neurosci 8:1–8Google Scholar
- Cohen D, Shmida A (1993) The evolution of flower display and reward. Evol Biol 27:197–243Google Scholar
- Martin NH (2004) Flower size preferences of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) foraging on Mimulus guttatus (Scrophulariaceae). Evol Ecol Res 6:777–782Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
- Salva OR, Sovrano VA, Vallortigara G (2014) What can fish brains tell us about visual perception? Front Neural Circuits 8:119Google Scholar
- SPSS I (2011) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 20.0. IBM Corp, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Strausfeld N, Buschbeck E, Gomez R (1995) The arthropod mushroom body: its functional roles, evolutionary enigmas and mistaken identities. In: Breidbach O, Kutsch W (eds) The nervous systems of invertebrates: an evolutionary and comparative approach. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 349–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Williams S, Reser D, Dyer A (2008) A biologically inspired mechano-optical imaging system based in insect vision. J Biocommun 34:3–7Google Scholar
- Zhang S (2006) Learning of abstract concepts and rules by the honeybee. Int J Comp Psychol 19:318–341Google Scholar