4.3 Article

Multispectral images of flowers reveal the adaptive significance of using long-wavelength-sensitive receptors for edge detection in bees

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00359-017-1156-x

关键词

Color processing; Receptor adaptation; Signal-to-noise ratio; Visual ecology; Visual processing

资金

  1. Human Frontier Science Program [LT-001074/2013-L]
  2. European Social Fund
  3. State Budget of the Czech Republic [CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0041]
  4. US National Science Foundation for his research in the Colorado Rocky Mountain alpine zone when he was on the faculty of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many pollinating insects acquire their entire nutrition from visiting flowers, and they must therefore be efficient both at detecting flowers and at recognizing familiar rewarding flower types. A crucial first step in recognition is the identification of edges and the segmentation of the visual field into areas that belong together. Honeybees and bumblebees acquire visual information through three types of photoreceptors; however, they only use a single receptor type-the one sensitive to longer wavelengths-for edge detection and movement detection. Here, we show that these long-wavelength receptors (peak sensitivity at similar to 544 nm, i.e., green) provide the most consistent signals in response to natural objects. Using our multispectral image database of flowering plants, we found that long-wavelength receptor responses had, depending on the specific scenario, up to four times higher signal-to-noise ratios than the short- and medium-wavelength receptors. The reliability of the long-wavelength receptors emerges from an intricate interaction between flower coloration and the bee's visual system. This finding highlights the adaptive significance of bees using only long-wavelength receptors to locate flowers among leaves, before using information provided by all three receptors to distinguish the rewarding flower species through trichromatic color vision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据