Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 7, pp 1145–1150 | Cite as

Foraging bumblebees do not rate social information above personal experience

Original Paper


Foraging animals can acquire new information about food sources either individually or socially, but they can also opt to rely on information that they have already acquired, termed “personal information”. Although social information can provide an adaptive shortcut to new resources, recent theory predicts that investing too much time in acquiring new information can be detrimental. Here, we investigate whether foraging bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) strategically prioritize personal information unless there is evidence of environmental change. All bees in our study had personal information that one species of artificial flower was rewarding, and bees in the scent group then experienced social information about an alternative-scented species inside the nest, while a control group did not. On their next foraging bout, bees in both groups overwhelmingly used personal information when deciding where to forage. When bees subsequently learnt that the rewards offered by their preferred species had dwindled, bees that had social information were no quicker to abandon their personal information than control bees, but once they had sampled the alternative flowers, they showed greater commitment to that species than control bees. Thus, we found no evidence that social information is particularly important when personal information fails to produce rewards (a “copy when established behaviour is unproductive” strategy). Instead, bees used social information specifically to complement personal information.


Social information use Social learning strategies Bumblebees 


  1. Boyd R, Richerson P (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd R, Richerson P (1988) An evolutionary model of social learning: the effects of spatial and temporal variation. In: Zentall TR, Galef BG (eds) Social learning: psychological and biological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 29–48Google Scholar
  3. Boyd R, Richerson P (1995) Why does culture increase human adaptability? Ethol Sociobiol 16:125–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chittka L, Thomson JD (eds) (2001) Cognitive ecology of pollination. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Couvillon MJ, Riddell Pearce FC, Harris-Jones EL, Kuepfer AM, Mackenzie-Smith sJ, Rozario LA, Schürch R, Ratnieks FLW (2012) Intra-dance variation among waggle runs and the design of efficient protocols for honey bee dance decoding. Biology Open. ISSN 2046-6390Google Scholar
  6. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Czaczkes TJ, Grüter C, Jones SM, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Synergy between social and personal information increases foraging efficiency in ants. Biol Lett 7(4):521–524. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0067 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawson EH, Chittka L (2014) Bees use social information as an indicator of safety in dangerous environments. Proc Roy Soc B (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Dawson EH, Avargues-Weber A, Chittka L, Leadbeater E (2013) Learning by observation emerges from simple associations in an insect model. Curr Biol 23:727–730Google Scholar
  10. Dornhaus A, Chittka L (1999) Evolutionary origins of bee dances. Nature 401:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dornhaus A, Chittka L (2001) Food alert in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): possible mechanisms and evolutionary implications. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50(6):570–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dornhaus A, Chittka L (2004) Information flow and regulation of foraging activity in bumble bees (Bombus spp.). Apidologie 35(2):183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enquist M, Eriksson K, Ghirlanda S (2007) Critical social learning: a solution to Rogers’s paradox of nonadaptive culture. Am Anthropol 109(4):727–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farina WM, Gruter C, Diaz PC (2005) Social learning of floral odours inside the honeybee hive. Proc R Soc Lond B 272(1575):1923–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farina WM, Gruter C, Acosta L, Mc Cabe S (2007) Honeybees learn floral odors while receiving nectar from foragers within the hive. Naturwissenschaften 94(1):55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frisch V (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Goulson D, Hawson SA, Stout JC (1998) Foraging bumblebees avoid flowers already visited by conspecifics or by other bumblebee species. Anim Behav 55:199–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grüter C, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Honeybee foragers increase the use of waggle dance information when personal information becomes unrewarding. Anim Behav 81(5):949–954. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grüter C, Balbuena MS, Farina WM (2008) Informational conflicts created by the waggle dance. Proc R Soc B 275:1321–1327PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grüter C, Leadbeater E, Ratnieks FLW (2010) Social learning: the importance of copying others. Curr Biol 20(16):R683–R685. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.06.052 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grüter C, Czaczkes TJ, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Decision making in ant foragers (Lasius niger) facing conflicting personal and social information. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65(2):141–148. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1020-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grüter C, Segers FHID, Ratnieks FLW (2013) Social learning strategies in honey bee foragers: do the costs of using personal information affect the use of social information? Anim Behav 85:1443–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Heyes (1994) Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biol Rev 69:207–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kendal RL, Coolen I, Laland KN (2004) The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict. Behav Ecol 15(2):269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning. Adv Stud Behav 35:333–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kendal RL, Coolen I, Laland KN (2009) Adaptive trade-offs in the use of social and personal information. Cognitive ecology IIGoogle Scholar
  29. Laland KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Learn Behav 32(1):4–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leadbeater E, Chittka L (2005) A new mode of information transfer in foraging bumblebees? Curr Biol 15(12):R447–R448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leadbeater E, Chittka L (2007a) Social learning in insects: from miniature brains to consensus building. Curr Biol 17(16):R703–R713PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leadbeater E, Chittka L (2007b) The dynamics of social learning in an insect model (Bombus terrestris). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1789–1796Google Scholar
  33. Molet M, Chittka L, Raine NE (2009) How floral odours are learned inside the bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) nest. Naturwissenschaften 96(2):213–219. doi:10.1007/s00114-008-0465-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rendell L, Boyd R, Cownden D, Enquist M, Eriksson K, Feldman MW, Fogarty L, Ghirlanda S, Lillicrap T, Laland KN (2010) Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science 328(5975):208–213. doi:10.1126/science.1184719 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rendell L, Fogarty L, Hoppitt W, Morgan T, Webster M, Laland K (2011) Cognitive culture: theoretical and empirical insights into social learning strategies. Trends Cogn Sci 15:68–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rieucau G, Giraldeau L-A (2011) Exploring the costs and benefits of social information use: an appraisal of current experimental evidence. Philos Trans R Soc B 366(1567):949–957. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogers AR (1988) Does biology constrain culture? Am Anthropol 90(4):819–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seeley TD (1998) Thoughts on information and integration in honey bee colonies. Apidologie 29(1–2):67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seeley TD, Visscher PK (1988) Assessing the benefits of co-operation in honeybee foraging- search costs, forage quality and competitive ability. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22(4):229–237. doi:10.1007/bf00299837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tanner DA, Visscher PK (2010) Adaptation or constraint? Reference-dependent scatter in honey bee dances. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64(7):1081–1086. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-0922-3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor BJ, Schalk DR, Jeanne RL (2010) Yellowjackets use nest-based cues to differentially exploit higher-quality resources. Naturwissenschaften 97:1041–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Terkel J (1996) Cultural transmission of feeding behaviour in the black rat (Rattus rattus). In: Heyes CM, Galef BG Jr (eds) Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. Academic Press, San Diego, pp p17–p48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thornton A, McAuliffe K (2006) Teaching in wild meerkats. Science 313:227–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Bergen Y, Coolen I, Laland KN (2004) Foraging nine-spined stickleback exploit the most reliable source when public and private information conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:957–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webster M, Laland K (2008) Social learning strategies and predation risk: minnows copy only when using personal information would be costly. Proc R Soc Lond B 275(1653):2869–2876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wenner AM, Wells PH, Johnson DL (1969) Honeybee recruitment to food sources- olfaction or language? Science 164:84–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyZoological Society of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesRoyal Holloway University of LondonEghamUK
  3. 3.School of Life and Medical SciencesUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations