Search

Octopamine has broad roles within invertebrate nervous systems as a neurohormone, neurotransmitter, and neuromodulator. It orchestrates foraging behavior in many insect taxa via effects on feeding, gustatory responsiveness, and appetitive learning. Knowledge of how this biogenic amine regulates bee physiology and behavior is based largely on study of a single species, the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Until recently, its role in the foraging ecology and social organization of diverse bee taxa had been unexplored. Bumble bees (Bombus spp.) are a model for research into the neural basis of foraging and learning, but whether octopamine similarly affects sensory and cognitive performance in this genus is not known. To address this gap, we explored the effects of octopamine on gustatory responsiveness and associative learning in Bombus impatiens via conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex (PER) using a visual (color) cue. We found that octopamine had similar effects on bumble bee behavior as previously reported in honey bees; however, higher doses were required to induce these effects. At this higher dose, octopamine lowered bees’ gustatory responsiveness and appeared to enhance associative learning performance during the early phase of our experiment. Adding to recent studies on stingless bees (Meliponini), these findings support the idea that octopamine’s role in reward perception and processing is broadly conserved across Apidae, while pointing towards some differences across systems worth exploring further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animals develop food preferences based on taste, nutritional quality and to avoid environmental toxins. Yet, measuring preferences in an experimental setting can be challenging since ecologically realistic assays can be time consuming, while simplified assays may not capture natural sampling behavior. Field realism is a particular challenge when studying behavioral responses to environmental toxins in lab-based assays, given that toxins can themselves impact sampling behavior, masking our ability to detect preferences. We address these challenges by comparing different experimental methods for measuring sucrose concentration preference in bumble bees (Bombus impatiens), evaluating the utility of two preference chamber-based methods (ad libitum versus a novel restricted-sampling assay) in replicating bees' preferences when they fly freely between artificial flowers in a foraging arena. We find that the restricted-sampling method matched a free-flying scenario more closely than the ad libitum protocol, and we advocate for expanded use of this approach, given its ease of implementation. We then performed a second experiment using the new protocol to ask whether consuming the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, known to suppress feeding motivation, interfered with the expression of sucrose preferences. After consuming imidacloprid, bees were less likely to choose the higher-quality sucrose even as they gained experience with both options. Thus, we provide evidence that pesticides interfere with bees' ability to discriminate between floral rewards that differ in value. This work highlights a simple protocol for assessing realistic foraging preferences in bees and provides an efficient way for researchers to measure the impacts of anthropogenic factors on preference expression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their natural environments, most animals must learn about multiple kinds of rewards, both within and across contexts. Despite this, the majority of research on animal learning involves a single reward type. For example, bees are an important model system for the study of cognition and its ecological consequences, but nearly all research to date on their learning concerns a single reward, nectar (carbohydrates), even though foragers often simultaneously collect pollen (protein). Features of learning under more ecologically realistic conditions involving multiple reward types are thus largely unexplored. To address this gap, we compared performance on a colour-learning task when floral surrogates offered bumblebees, Bombus impatiens , a single type of floral reward versus multiple, nutritionally distinct rewards. In one experiment, bees learned a floral association with nectar either alone or while simultaneously collecting pollen. In a reciprocal experiment, bees learned a floral association with pollen either alone or while simultaneously collecting nectar. Bees that collected pollen while learning about nectar did not suffer any detriment to learning which flower colour offered nectar. However, this was not the case for the reciprocal task: collecting nectar impaired bees' ability to learn and remember associations between floral colour and pollen. Our findings offer new insight into how bees learn in relation to ecologically realistic rewards and how cognitive constraints may shape their behaviour under ecologically realistic foraging scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ever since Karl von Frisch's Nobel Prize-winning work in the early 1900s, bees have served as an important model system for the study of learning, memory and foraging behaviour. Bees can learn about floral features including colour, scent, texture and electrostatic charge, and show surprisingly sophisticated forms of learning. However, nearly every study of bee cognition and foraging to date has used a sole reward: nectar, most often in the form of a simple sucrose solution. Plants also offer a number of other rewards to pollinators, the most prevalent being pollen that bees collect as their primary source of protein. Indeed, a significant proportion of angiosperm species are nectarless, rewarding bees with pollen alone. Surprisingly, whether free-flying bees can learn visual features based solely on floral pollen rewards is unknown. Here we show that bees can learn to associate multiple floral features with a pure pollen reward. Furthermore, these associations are remembered long term, comparable to bees' memory for nectar associations. These findings raise new questions about bee learning and the evolutionary history between plants and bee pollinators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]