Elemental and non-elemental olfactory learning using PER conditioning in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris
- 355 Downloads
Learning olfactory stimuli and their implications is essential in bumblebees for orientation and recognition of nest sites and food sources. To evaluate associative learning abilities in bees under controlled environmental conditions, the proboscis extension response (PER) assay is a well-established method used in honeybees and has recently been successfully adapted to bumblebees. In this study, we examined the cognitive abilities of workers of the eusocial bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, by training individuals in different olfactory learning tasks using classical PER conditioning. We compared learning performance for four different floral odors. Individuals were able to solve absolute (A+) and differential (A+ vs. B−) conditioning tasks, and no differences were found between single odors and odor combinations, respectively. Furthermore, bumblebees performed well on a positive pattern discrimination task (A−, B− vs. AB+), but failed to solve the negative pattern discrimination (A+, B+ vs. AB−). Our results indicate that workers of B. terrestris possess elemental olfactory learning abilities, but, in contrast to previous findings in honeybees, fail in more complex tasks, such as negative pattern discrimination. We discuss possible ultimate causes that have led to the difference in learning capabilities between bumblebees and honeybees.
Keywordselemental learning Bombus terrestris proboscis extension conditioning bumblebee configural associations
We would like to thank Karin Möller for rearing the bumblebees. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This work was supported by a PhD research scholarship offered by the Free State of Bavaria (Elitenetzwerk Bayern) to FMJS.
- Kuwabara, M. (1957) Bildung des bedingten Reflexes von Pavlovs Typus bei der Honigbiene Apis mellifera. J. Fac. Scie. Hokkaido Univ. Ser. VI Zool. 13, 458–464Google Scholar
- Menzel, R., Giurfa, M., Gerber, B., Hellstern, F. (1999) Elementary and configural forms of memory in an insect: the honeybee. In: Friederici, A.D., Menzel, R. (eds.) Learning: Rule Extraction and Representation, pp. 259–282. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Pelz, C., Gerber, B., Menzel, R. (1996) Odorant intensity as a determinant for olfactory conditioning in honeybees: roles in discrimination, over-shadowing, and memory consolidation. J. Exp. Biol. 200, 837–847Google Scholar
- Raine, N.E., Chittka, L. (2007). Flower Constancy and memory dynamics in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus). Entomol. Gen. 29(2–4), 179–199Google Scholar
- Rescorla, R.A., Wagner, A.R. (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In: Black, A.H., Prokasy, W.F. (eds.) Classical Conditioning 2: Current research and theory, pp. 64–99. Appleton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wagner, A.R., Rescorla, R.A. (1972) Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: application of a theory. In: Halliday, M.S., Boakes, R.A. (eds.) Inhibition and learning, pp. 301–336. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar