4.5 Article

Accelerated behavioural development changes fine-scale search behaviour and spatial memory in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 219, 期 3, 页码 412-418

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.126920

关键词

Temporal polyethism; Spatial memory; Navigation; Social insect; Precocious forager; Reversal learning

类别

资金

  1. Endeavour Scholarship
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25285197] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Normally, worker honey bees (Apis mellifera) begin foraging when more than 2 weeks old as adults, but if individual bees or the colony is stressed, bees often begin foraging precociously. Here, we examined whether bees that accelerated their behavioural development to begin foraging precociously differed from normal-aged foragers in cognitive performance. We used a social manipulation to generate precocious foragers from small experimental colonies and tested their performance in a free-flight visual reversal learning task, and a test of spatial memory. To assess spatial memory, bees were trained to learn the location of a small sucrose feeder within an array of three landmarks. In tests, the feeder and one landmark were removed and the search behaviour of the bees was recorded. Performance of precocious and normal-aged foragers did not differ in a visual reversal learning task, but the two groups showed a clear difference in spatial memory. Flight behaviour suggested normal-aged foragers were better able to infer the position of the removed landmark and feeder relative to the remaining landmarks than precocious foragers. Previous studies have documented the cognitive decline of old foragers, but this is the first suggestion of a cognitive deficit in young foragers. These data imply that worker honey bees continue their cognitive development during the adult stage. These findings may also help to explain why precocious foragers perform quite poorly as foragers and have a higher than normal loss rate.

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

4.5
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