|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online November 1, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 4420-4428 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02522
Honeybee memory: a honeybee knows what to do and when
1 ARC Centre of Excellence in Vision Science, Research School of Biological
Sciences, Australian National University, PO Box 475, Canberra ACT 2601,
Australia
2 Beegroup, Biozentrum, Universitaet Würzburg, Am Hubland, D-97074
Würzburg, Germany
Author for correspondence (e-mail:
shaowu.zhang{at}anu.edu.au)
Accepted 4 September 2006
 |
Summary |
|---|
 TOP Summary IntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Key words: honeybee, memory, contextual learning, circadian rhythm, pattern vision
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
;
Wehner, 2003;
Collett et al., 2003). Since
the species of flowers that are in bloom, say, in the morning are likely to be
replaced by a different species at a different location in the afternoon, the
bee needs, and has indeed evolved, an impressive ability to learn and memorize
local features and routes, as well as the time of blooming, quickly and
accurately. Thus, having found a nectarbearing flower at a particular time on
a particular day, a forager can remember the task and the time at which it was
completed, and visit the flower at the same place and time on the following
day (von Frisch, 1993;
Lindauer, 1960;
Gould and Gould, 1988).
During evolution, honeybees have evolved sophisticated sensory systems and
well-developed learning and memorizing capacities, the essential mechanisms of
which do not differ drastically from those of vertebrates
(Giurfa and Menzel, 1997;
Giurfa, 2003;
Zhang and Srinivasan, 2004a;
Zhang and Srinivasan, 2004b;
Dyer et al., 2005). Honeybees
also have a time sense, with which they can modulate their response to a local
stimulus according to the time of day. Koltermann examined circadian memory
rhythm in honeybees, and discovered that honeybees can learn scents or colors
in a time-linked process, and remember them in a 24 h cycle
(Koltermann, 1971). Circadian
systems permit organisms to measure time for adaptively significant purposes
(Moore-Ede et al., 1982). Bees
synchronize their behavior with daily floral rhythms, foraging only when
nectar and pollen are at their highest levels. At other times, they remain in
the hive, conserving energy that otherwise would be exhausted on nonproductive
foraging flights (Moore,
2001). Menzel et al. investigated whether and how contextual
parameters, such as time of day and features characterizing the location, can
be utilized to determine choice behavior, and claimed that time of day or
landmarks cannot by themselves elicit the conditioned response, but can
control different behaviors (such as image-matching, navigation, timing of
motivation to forage) (Menzel et al.,
1996). Work carried out in the laboratory of Robinson
(Robinson et al., 1989) has
shown that there are molecular processes occurring in the brain that influence
the division of labor and biological clocks of social insects. With respect to
contextual learning by the honeybee, it has recently been shown that honeybees
and bumblebees can learn to modulate their responses to local stimuli
according to contextual cues. Collett and Kelber
(Collett and Kelber, 1988), for
instance, found that honeybees can retrieve the right landmark-memory by the
context in which the landmarks are placed. Honeybees can also learn to change
their response to a visual pattern according to whether a stimulus provides
access to the hive or to the feeder
(Gadakar et al., 1995).
Colborn et al. examined the contextual modulation of visuomotor associations
in bumblebees, and reported that different contextual signals are associated
with approaching the nest or approaching the feeder, and that these contextual
signals facilitate learnt associations between orientation detection and motor
commands (Colborn et al.,
1999). The modulation of such contextual cues can help honeybees
to recognize landmarks from new vantage points
(Zhang et al., 1999;
Collett and Collett, 2002). In
recent studies, Chittka et al. found that some insects can modulate their
response time to perform tasks on a relatively short time scale, depending
upon their perceived difficulty and context of a task, in order to make a
tradeoff between the speed and accuracy of foraging
(Chittka, 2003;
Franks et al., 2003;
Dyer and Chittka, 2004). Dale
et al. demonstrated that honeybees and bumblebees can learn to treat the same
visual and olfactory target in different ways in different spatial, temporal
or motivational contexts. Such contextual influences are important in allowing
honeybees to flexibly adapt to many different situations
(Dale et al., 2005).
However, there has been little experimental work investigating bees' abilities to modulate their behavior in response to multiple contextual cues. In the present article, we report that honeybees can learn to simultaneously change their preference for a visual pattern with both the time of day, i.e. whether it is morning or afternoon, and the task at hand, i.e. whether the bee is flying to the feeder or returning to the hive.
|
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
45%. The experimental hive and a Y-maze setup were located in
the AWBFF; the distance between the hive and the Y-maze was 8 m (Movie 1 in
supplementary material). Further experiments were carried out in the following
German summer season during July and August 2005 at the Bee Station of the
Wuerzburg University, where an observation hive and a Y-maze setup were
maintained in two small huts; the distance between the two huts was 24 m (Figs
S1-S2 in supplementary material). About 20 foraging bees (Apis
mellifera L.) were marked individually at the beginning of each
experiment, and trained to visit a feeder with a 0.5 mol l-1 sugar
solution in the Y-maze. Bees entering the Y-maze were trained to choose one of
two patterns (termed positive) which indicated the position of the feeder.
Bees returning to the hive also had to choose between two patterns to access
the hive, as only the entrance behind the positive pattern was open during
training (Fig. S3 and Movie 2 in supplementary material). During the test
periods, both entrances were open. Thus, bees could choose to access the hive
through either entrance. An experimental bee had to learn two tasks in one
foraging trip, i.e. making a choice in the maze to receive sugar water and
then another choice to enter the hive. During training, the positions of the
positive and negative patterns at the feeder and the hive were regularly
swapped every 30 min, so that the bees could not use position as a cue to
either find the feeder or access the hive. Similarly, the positions of the
positive and negative patterns were interchanged every 10 min in the middle of
testing periods. During the midday break, the visual patterns at the feeder
and the hive were removed; the feeder was moved to outside the maze, and both
entrances of the hive were opened. The bees could therefore continue to visit
the feeder located in the front of the maze, and access the hive through
either of the two entrances.
Visual stimuli
The visual patterns (18 cmx18 cm) were printed on a color laser
printer (Fuji Xerox Document Centre C360 PS color printer). Gratings oriented
at 45° versus 135° in blue/white (see the inset in
Fig. 1), sectors
versus rings, vertical versus horizontal gratings in
black/white or blue/white (see the insets in
Fig. 2,
Fig. 4 and Fig. S4 in
supplementary material) and blue versus yellow color patterns (see
Fig. 3) were used for different
experiments.
|
|
|
|
Series 1
We investigated whether honeybees can modulate their preference for a
visual pattern with the time of day.
Experiment 1 of this series was carried out during the Australian summer in the AWBFF at the Australian National University. Here, a pair of blue/white gratings oriented at 45° or 135° to the horizontal was used at the feeder and the hive. In our experimental setup, the choice of the 45°-oriented grating allowed a forager bee access to a feeder and entry to the hive in the morning. In the afternoon, however, a 135°-oriented grating at the feeder as well as the hive became the positive pattern.
Experiment 2 of this series was carried out during the German summer at Wuerzburg University. In Experiment 2, the visual patterns were black/white sectors versus rings at the feeder, and the black/white vertical versus horizontal gratings at the hive. The sectors pattern at the feeder and the vertical grating at the hive were positive patterns in the morning. However, the rings at the feeder and the horizontal gratings at the hive were positive patterns in the afternoon. The tests commenced after 3 days of training for each experiment, and lasted for 3 days.
Series 2
We examined whether honeybees can reverse their pattern preference with the
task at hand, i.e. foraging or returning home. Two experiments were conducted
during the Australian summer in the AWBFF at the Australian National
University. The yellow pattern was the positive pattern at the feeder, but the
blue pattern was the positive pattern at the hive in Experiment 1. The blue
pattern at the feeder and the yellow pattern at the hive became the positive
patterns in Experiment 2. The tests, that commenced after 3 days of training
for each experiment and lasted for 3 days, were conducted at both the feeder
and the hive, one in the morning at 11:00 h and another in the afternoon at
16:00 h for 20 min, over 3 days.
Series 3
We examined whether honeybees can simultaneously change their preference
for a visual pattern with both the time of day, and the task at hand. The
experiment was carried out at the Bee Station of the Wuerzburg University. In
our experimental setup, the choice of a `horizontal grating' stimulus allowed
a forager bee access to a feeder, whereas a `vertical grating' stimulus
allowed entry to the hive in the morning. In the afternoon, however, a
vertical grating at the feeder and a horizontal grating at the hive became the
positive patterns. In order to facilitate learning this complex task,
horizontal and vertical gratings in blue/white were used at the feeder, and
gratings in black/white were used at the hive entrance during the training
period and the learning test. Three days of trainings were followed by 3 days
of learning tests (see Training and learning tests for experimental Series 3
in supplementary material). After the learning tests, the bees were trained to
more complex tasks, in which horizontal and vertical gratings in black/white
were used at the feeder as well. This was followed by `critical' tests, which
lasted for another 3 days. In the critical tests, the visual patterns at the
feeder and the hive were the same, i.e. black/white gratings. The bees were
trained continuously between each critical test.
In the experiments of Series 1 and 3, training in the morning started at 09:30 h, and lasted for 3 h, and the afternoon session started at 14:30 h, and lasted for 3 h as well. The tests were carried out four times a day: 09:30 am, i.e. early morning; 11:30 h, i.e. late morning; 14:30 h, i.e. early afternoon; and 16:30 h, i.e. late afternoon. The mid-day break lasted from 12:30 h to 14:30 h. The terms MF1 and MH1 (or MF2 and MH2) denote the early morning (or late morning) tests at the feeder and the hive, and AF1 and AH1 (or AF2 and AH2) denote the early afternoon (or late afternoon) tests at the feeder and the hive, respectively.
Data analysis
During tests, the first choices of bees at the feeder and the hive were
recorded. We performed analyses of variance (ANOVA) across all repeated tests
for individual bees and for each type of experimental condition using the
statistical software SYSTAT. Thus, the performance of each bee was evaluated
separately by pooling its correct choices and visits over all repeated tests,
and calculating the ratio of the number of correct choices to the number of
visits. The average performance for a particular experimental condition was
obtained by averaging choice frequencies across bees. The sample size
(N) was the number of bees, rather than the number of individual
choices, ensuring that the samples were truly statistically independent. Mean
values of choice frequency, standard deviation and standard error of the mean
(s.e.m.) were calculated. In the text and in the figures, performance is
indicated by the mean choice frequency (± s.e.m.). We used nonlinear
regression to approximate the average choice frequency with reference to the
specified patterns in Series 1 and 3.
To check whether the task at hand affects pattern preference in Series 2,
we carried out statistical tests for each experiment to check for significant
differences in performance at the feeder and the hive. To check whether `time
of day', i.e. morning or afternoon affects pattern preference in Series 1 and
3, we carried out the following four statistical tests to check for
significant differences in performance: (MF1 vs AF2), (MH1
vs AH2), (MF2 vs AF2) and (MH2 vs AH1). To check
the same for `task', in Series 3, the following four tests were done: (MF1
vs MH1), (MF2 vs MH2), (AF1 vs AH1) and (AF2
vs AH2). 
2 tests were used for all of these
comparisons.
Checking bias at the hive and the feeder
As a control, side bias counting was carried out usually in the morning
before the experiments started, to check whether the trained bees had
developed any side bias in their choices. In the bias counting, the bees'
choice performance was measured while two identical visual patterns were
presented at the hive or the feeder.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The first experiment in this series was carried out in the AWBFF at the Australian National University. The trained bees were tested in all of eight different types of test (MF1, MH1, MF2, MH2, AF1, AH1, AF2 and AH2). The results of this experiment, shown in Fig. 1, revealed that the bees modulated their preference to the 45°-oriented grating according to the time of day, both at the feeder (Fig. 1A) and at the hive (Fig. 1B). In the morning, the bees significantly preferred the 45°-oriented grating at the feeder (MF1 and MF2 in Fig. 1A; P<0.001) and at the hive (MH1 and MH2 in Fig. 1B; P<0.001). Their pattern preference gradually changed to 135° around midday, and reduced to the random choice level of 0.50 in the early afternoon test at the feeder (AF1 in Fig. 1A; P>0.3) and at the hive (AH1 in Fig. 1B; P>0.90). However, pattern preference was significantly changed to the 135° grating in the late afternoon test, at the feeder (AF2, in Fig. 1A; P<0.001) and at the hive (AH2, in Fig. 1B; P<0.001). When we compare the average choice frequency in favor of the 45° grating between MF2 and AF1 at the feeder, or MH2 and AH1 at the hive, the results show that the bees' pattern preference has significantly changed in the time between the late morning and the early afternoon tests (P<0.001). Similar conclusions can be drawn when we compare the performance in the late afternoon test (AF2 at the feeder, in Fig. 1A and AH2 at the hive, in Fig. 1B) to the following early morning test (MF1 at the feeder, in Fig. 1A and MH1 at the hive, in Fig. 1B). The trained bees significantly reversed their pattern preference from the 135° grating to 45° grating after an overnight break.
The modulation of the average choice frequency in favor of the 45° grating can be approximated very well by a sinusoidal curve with a frequency of 0.52, i.e. a period of 12 h. The correlation coefficient for the sinusoidal curve is 0.98 at the feeder and 0.998 at the hive.
The second experiment in this series was carried out at the Bee Station in Germany. The bees were trained to simultaneously (i) choose the sectors pattern at the feeder to obtain a reward, and the vertical grating to access the hive in the morning; and (ii) the rings pattern at the feeder and the horizontal grating at the hive in the afternoon. The trained bees were tested in all of eight different types of test (MF1, MH1, MF2, MH2, AF1, AH1, AF2 and AH2). The results of this experiment, shown in Fig. 2, revealed:
Series 2
Honeybees can learn to reverse their preference for a visual pattern
depending on the task - foraging or returning home.
The experiments for this series were carried out in the AWBFF at the Australian National University's Research School of Biological Sciences. In the tests of the first experiment in this series, the bees showed a strong preference for the yellow pattern at the feeder with a statistically significant difference from the random choice level (0.93±0.03, N=11, P<0.001), but for the blue pattern at the hive (0.86±0.03, N=11, P<0.001; Fig. 3A). In the second experiment of this series, the bees showed a preference for the blue pattern at the feeder (0.75±0.03, N=8, P<0.001), but for the yellow pattern at the hive (0.58±0.05, N=8, P<0.05) (Fig. 3B). Thus, the trained bees could significantly reverse their preference for a visual pattern within a time interval of about 2 min on average, which included the flight time between the feeder and the hive and the time of drinking sugar solution on the feeder.
Series 3
Honeybees can change their preference for a visual pattern simultaneously
with the time of day as well as task at hand.
In these learning tests, blue/white gratings were used at the feeder, while black/white gratings were used at the hive. The learning tests were carried out on the third day after training commenced. All eight tests were carried out. The results showed that preference for the positive pattern was significantly better than the random choice level of 0.50 in the learning tests (Fig. S4 in supplementary material). The critical test commenced after the learning tests had finished - now, the visual patterns at the feeder side and the hive side were the same, i.e. black/white gratings. The results showed that preference for the positive pattern was significantly better than the random choice level of 0.50 in all critical tests, namely MF1, MF2, AF1, AF2 (P<0.001, Fig. 4A) and MH1, MH2, AH1 and AH2 (P<0.001, Fig. 4B). Whereas the average choice frequency at the feeder was in favor of the horizontal grating in the late morning test (MF2, Fig. 4A), it reverted to the vertical grating in the early afternoon test (AF1, Fig. 4A), following the midday break (P<0.001). At the hive entrance, the average choice frequency favored the vertical grating in the late morning test (MH2, Fig. 4B), but reverted to the horizontal grating in the early afternoon test (AH1, Fig. 4B) after the midday break (P<0.001). The trained bees therefore significantly reversed their pattern preference at the feeder and the hive entrance following midday breaks (P<0.001). Similar conclusions can be drawn when we compare the performance at the feeder in the early morning test (MF1, Fig. 4A) and the late afternoon test (AF2, Fig. 4A), and also at the hive when we compare the performance in the early morning test (MH1, Fig. 4B) and the late afternoon test (AH2, Fig. 4B). The trained bees significantly reversed their pattern preference at the feeder and the hive entrance after an overnight break (P<0.001).
The modulation of the average choice frequency in favor of the horizontal grating can also be approximated very well by a sinusoidal curve with a frequency of 0.52, i.e. a period of 12 h. However, the phase of the sinusoidal curve at the hive was shifted 180° in reference to the feeder. The correlation coefficient for the sinusoidal curve is 0.97 at the feeder and the hive. When we compared average choice frequencies at the feeder to those at the hive entrance within each testing period, i.e. early morning (MF1 in Fig. 4A to MH1 in Fig. 4B), late morning (MF2 in Fig. 4A to MH2 in Fig. 4B), early afternoon (AF1 in Fig. 4A to AH1 in Fig. 4B) and late afternoon (AF2 in Fig. 4A to AH2 in Fig. 4B), the bees were found to have reversed their pattern preference significantly (P<0.001) (see inset table of statistical tests in Fig. 4A). Thus, the bees had learnt to choose a different pattern, depending on whether they were foraging or returning home.
Consistency of performance between individual bees
We conducted ANOVA to check the homogeneity of the data before pooling and
averaging individual bees' performances. However, a question that remains is
whether the test results indicate a collective performance, driven by only a
few bees that outperformed the others. Therefore, we compared the performance
of individual bees in all types of tests in the critical test of Series 3.
Table 1 summarizes the
performance history of six individual bees; these bees were involved in all
eight types of tests throughout the duration of the experiment.
Table 1 convincingly
demonstrates consistent performance between individual bees, in which all of
the individuals reversed their pattern preference with time, when comparing
MF1 to AF2, MH1 to AH2, MF2 to AF1 and MH2 to AH1; and also with the task,
when comparing MF1 to MH1, MF2 to MH2, AF1 to AH1 and AF2 to AH2. Therefore,
we can safely say that individual bees can reverse their pattern preference
according to the time of day and the task, i.e. foraging or returning
home.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
;
Kaiser, 1988;
Moore, 2001;
Bloch and Robinson, 2001;
Sauer et al., 2004). Is it possible that this result is an artifact of averaging the performances of trained bees? How does the behavior of individual bees compare with this pattern? To clarify this point, we carefully analyzed the performance of individual bees; the results are summarized in Table 2, which shows that a large percentage of individuals varied their behavior in four successive periods. In Series 1 at the feeder and at the hive, most individuals increased their preference for the specified pattern in period 1; this reduced to 0.50 or less in period 2 during the midday breaks, decreased further in period 3, and rose again to higher than 0.50 in period 4. A similar modulation of the choice frequency among individuals can also be observed in Series 3, with the difference that the direction of change at the feeder and at the hive within each period is reversed. Using nonlinear regression, we were able to fit a sinusoidal curve to the average choice frequencies of trained bees with reference to the specified pattern evaluated in the four daily tests. The tests were ordered around a daily cycle of 12 h, therefore giving a frequency of 0.52 to the sinusoidal curve. The results of the approximation show that the modulation of the average choice frequency in favor of a specified pattern in the four daily tests can be approximated very well by a regular sinusoidal pattern (Figs 1 and 4).
|
In period 1 and period 3, the average choice frequency increased with reference to the specified positive pattern (note: the positive pattern was reversed in the afternoon). It could be caused by a difference in the choice-reversal rate of individual bees after overnight and midday breaks, as well as due to continuous training after the early morning and early afternoon tests. However, the 09:30 h test was commenced after an overnight break without re-training, and the 14:30 h test was commenced after midday breaks without re-training. Therefore, the performance level in these two tests could be only set by the biological rhythms. The zero-crossing point of the sinusoidal regression curve, predicting bees' pattern preference reversed at the feeder and at the hive, coincides with the midday and overnight breaks (Figs 1 and 4).
A large percentage of individuals followed this trend (Table 2), as the experimental bees switched their preference from one pattern to the other, as dictated by their internal clock. We suggest that our training was able to impose the modulation of pattern preference on the biological rhythms of individual bees.
Our findings were very consistent, in spite of the fact that experiments were carried out in different environmental conditions. The experiments began at the Australian National University, and were then repeated at the Wuerzburg University. We obtained the same results, in spite of the experiments being carried out both outdoors and within the indoor bee flight facility, which has a controlled ambience. There is relatively little UV light within the indoor bee flight facility, because the Perspex roof blocks most of it. The consistent results obtained indoors and outdoors indicate that the honeybees did not need to use polarized sunlight as a cue to change their preference according to time. However, there are slight differences in the results of the indoor and outdoor experiments. The bees gradually changed their pattern preference between the morning and the afternoon, immediately following a midday break in the indoor experiment of Series 1. In the case of the outdoor experiments, however, the bees significantly reversed their pattern preference immediately following a midday break in Series 3. A possible reason is that bees could not use polarized light and the exact sun position as cues in the indoor experiment, but were able to do so in the outdoor experiments of Series 3. However, as two different hives were used in the indoor and outdoor experiments, we cannot yet conclusively state that the presence of polarized light was responsible for the difference in the performance of the indoor and outdoor bees. Further experiments are required to clarify this matter.
The complexity of honeybee memory
In the experiments of Series 3, honeybees had to simultaneously change
their preference for a visual pattern with both the time of day, as well as
the task at hand. To date, this is the most complex task that honeybees in our
laboratories have been trained to perform, since we started to explore this
insect's cognitive capabilities at the Australian National University's
Research School of Biological Sciences in 1996. In this task, the honeybees
had to retrieve the exact memory for the decision not only by means of a
single visuo-spatial input, but also using their biological clock and
motivation as cues. In other words, the bees had to remember their responses
to visual patterns within the context of the task to be performed, as well as
the current time coordinates. In order to facilitate the learning of this very
complex task, we adopted the method used by Collect and his colleagues: they
trained bumblebees to discriminate between horizontally and vertically
oriented gratings of black/white, in order to reach the feeder, and between
different diagonally oriented gratings to gain access to their nest. Once the
bees had been trained on these two tasks, they could rapidly learn new
discrimination tasks, where they had to distinguish between horizontal and
vertical gratings at both sites. Whereas they still approached the horizontal
grating to reach food, they now had to choose a vertical grating in order to
return to their nest (Colborn et al.,
1999; Cheng, 2005).
In our experiments, we introduced the additional contextual cue of color
difference at the feeder and the hive during the training phase and learning
tests: the bees had to approach a blue horizontal grating to reach the feeder,
and a black vertical grating to access their hive in the morning, and then
reverse their preference at both sites in the afternoon. The trained bees
learned these tasks well, and performed equally well in the learning tests.
Afterwards, the bees were only briefly trained to the new, more complex tasks,
following which the critical tests were carried out, where horizontal and
vertical gratings of black/white were used at both sites. The bees performed
very well in the critical tests, and could simultaneously change their
preference for a visual pattern with both the time of day, and the task at
hand.
An individual bee knows whether it is foraging or returning home
Foraging behavior in honeybees can be modulated by juvenile hormone
(Huang and Robinson, 1995), by
demand for food in the colony (Seeley,
1997; Seeley and Visscher,
2004) or by a worker's nutritional state
(Toth et al., 2005). Our
experiments have demonstrated that individual bees can quickly reverse their
pattern preference between an outward foraging flight and the return trip back
to the hive. Thus, the forager knows what to do during both events. In our
experiments, the distance between the hive and the feeder was very short,
being only 8 m in the indoor experiments at the Australian National University
and 24 m in the field experiments at the Wuerzburg University. The flight time
between the hive and the feeder was a few seconds for the indoor experiments
and 20 s for the field experiments on average. Each forager remained on the
feeder drinking sugar solution for about 90 s. The experimental foragers could
therefore change their pattern preference in about a few minutes, as their
status changed from foraging to returning home. What could be happening in
honeybee's brain during this short period of time? Colborn et al.
(Colborn et al., 1999) proposed
that different contextual signals are associated with approaching the nest or
approaching the feeder, and that these contextual signals facilitate learnt
associations between orientation detectors and motor commands. Dyer examined
the relation between motivation and vector navigation in honeybees, and found
that the resetting of the path integration vector can be influenced by
motivational cues associated with food deprivation
(Dyer et al., 2002). If this
is indeed the case, the brain dopamine level could be operating as a subsecond
modulator of food seeking (Roitman et al.,
2004). It might even be that the motivations of foraging or
returning home act as contextual cues, which can modulate the decisions
available to a bee. Further changes in a bee's status, such as an empty or a
full stomach before and after obtaining a reward, could act as triggers that
change a bee's behavior.
The processes of learning and memory are undoubtedly more sophisticated in
primates and mammals than in insects, but there seems to be a continuum in
these capacities across the animal kingdom, rather than a sharp distinction
between vertebrates and invertebrates. The abilities of an animal seem to be
governed largely by what it needs in order to pursue its lifestyle, rather
than whether or not it possesses a backbone
(Zhang and Srinivasan, 2004a;
Zhang and Srinivasan, 2004b).
The properties of learning and memory in insects have been shown to be well
suited to the requirements of the tasks that they have to perform
(Cheng and Wignall, 2006;
Lynn et al., 2005). The
present research demonstrates that the honeybee possesses a complex memory
capable of memorizing tasks within a time schedule. Honeybees can `plan' their
activities in time and space, and use context to determine which action to
perform and when.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
* These authors contributed equally to this work 
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Bloch, G. and Robinson, G. E. (2001). Chronobiology. Reversal of honeybee behavioural rhythms. Nature 410,1048 .[CrossRef][Medline]
Cheng, K. (2005). Context cues eliminate
retroactive interference effects in honeybees Apis mellifera. J.
Exp. Biol. 208,1019
-1024.
Cheng, K. and Wignall, A. E. (2006). Honeybees (Apis mellifera) holding on to memories: response competition causes retroactive interference effects. Anim. Cogn. 9, 141-150.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chittka, L. (2003). Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy. Nature 424, 388.[CrossRef][Medline]
Colborn, M., Ahmad-Annuar, A., Fauria, K. and Collett, T. S.
(1999). Contextual modulation of visuomotor associations in
bumble-bees (Bombus terrestris). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
Biol. Sci. 266,2413
-2418.
Collett, T. S. and Collett, M. (2002). Memory use in insect visual navigation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 542-552.[CrossRef][Medline]
Collett, T. S. and Kelber, A. (1988). The retrieval of visuo-spatial memories by honeybees. J. Comp. Physiol. A 163,145 -150.[CrossRef][Medline]
Collett, T. S., Graham, P. and Durier, V. (2003). Route learning by insects. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 13,718 -725.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dale, K., Harland, D. P., Manning-Jones, A. and Collett, T.
S. (2005). Weak and strong priming cues in bumblebee
contextual learning. J. Exp. Biol.
208, 65-74.
Dyer, A. G. and Chittka, L. (2004). Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) sacrifice foraging speed to solve difficult colour discrimination tasks. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 190,759 -763.[Medline]
Dyer, A. G., Neumeyer, C. and Chittka, L.
(2005). Honeybee (Apis mellifera) vision can
discriminate between and recognise images of human faces. J. Exp.
Biol. 208,4709
-4714.
Dyer, F. C., Gill, M. and Sharbowski, J. (2002). Motivation and vector navigation in honey bees. Naturwissenschaften 89,262 -264.[CrossRef][Medline]
Franks, N. R., Dornhaus, A., Fitzsimmons, J. P. and Stevens, M. (2003). Speed versus accuracy in collective decision making. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270,2457 -2463.
Gadakar, R., Srinivasan, M. V. and Zhang, S. W. (1995). Context dependent learning in honeybees. Proc. Aust. Neurosci. Soc. 6,226 .
Giurfa, M. (2003). Cognitive neuroethology: dissecting non-elemental learning in a honeybee brain. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 13,726 -735.[CrossRef][Medline]
Giurfa, M. and Menzel, R. (1997). Insect visual perception: complex abilities of simple nervous systems. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 7,505 -513.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gould, J. and Gould, C. G. (1988). Programmed learning. In The Honey Bee, pp.185 -190. New York: Scientific American Library.
Huang, Z. Y. and Robinson, G. E. (1995). Seasonal changes in juvenile hormone titers and rates of biosynthesis in honey bees. J. Comp. Physiol. B 165, 18-28.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kaiser, W. (1988). Busy bees need rest, too. Behavioural and electromyographical sleep signs in honeybees. J. Comp. Physiol. A 163,565 -584.[CrossRef]
Koltermann, R. (1971). 24-std-periodik in der langzeiterinnerung an duft - und farbsignal bei der honigbiene. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 75,49 -68.[CrossRef]
Lindauer, M. (1960). Time-compensated sun
orientation in bees. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant.
Biol. 25,371
-377.
Lynn, S. K., Cnaani, J. and Papaj, D. R. (2005). Peak shift discrimination learning as a mechanism of signal evolution. Evolution 59,1300 -1305.[CrossRef][Medline]
Menzel, R., Geiger, K., Chittka, L., Joerges, J., Kunze, J. and Müller, U. (1996). The knowledge base of bee navigation. J. Exp. Biol. 199,141 -146.[Abstract]
Moore, D. (2001). Honey bee circadian clocks: behavioral control from individual workers to whole-colony rhythms. J. Insect Physiol. 47,843 -857.[CrossRef]
Moore-Ede, M. C., Sulzman, F. M. and Fuller, C. A. (1982). The Clocks that Time Us: Physiology of the Circadian Timing System. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Robinson, G. E., Page, R. E. C., Strambi, C. and Strambi, A.
(1989). Hormonal and genetic control of behavioral integration in
honey bee colonies. Science
246,109
-112.
Roitman, M. F., Stuber, G. D., Phillips, P. E., Wightman, R. M.
and Carelli, R. M. (2004). Dopamine operates as a subsecond
modulator of food seeking. J. Neurosci.
24,1265
-1271.
Sauer, S., Herrmann, E. and Kaiser, W. (2004). Sleep deprivation in honey bees. J. Sleep Res. 13,145 -152.[CrossRef][Medline]
Seeley, T. D. (1997). Honeybee colonies are group-level adaptive units. Am. Nat. 150,S22 -S41.[CrossRef][Medline]
Seeley, T. D. and Visscher, P. K. (2004). Group decision making in nest-site selection by honey bees. Apidologie 35,101 -116.[CrossRef]
Toth, A. L., Kantarovich, S., Meisel, A. F. and Robinson, G.
E. (2005). Nutritional status influences socially regulated
foraging ontogeny in honey bees. J. Exp. Biol.
208,4641
-4649.
von Frisch, K. (1993). The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wehner, R. (2003). Desert ant navigation: how miniature brains solve complex tasks. J. Comp. Physiol. A 189,579 -588.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zhang, S. W. and Srinivasan, M. V. (2004a). Visual perception and cognition in honeybees. In The Visual Neurosciences (ed. L. Chalupa and J. S. Werner), pp.1501 -1513. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zhang, S. W. and Srinivasan, M. V. (2004b). Exploration of cognitive capacity in honeybees. In Complex Worlds from Simpler Nervous Systems (ed. F. R. Prete). pp.41 -74. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zhang, S. W., Lehrer, M. and Srinivasan, M. V. (1999). Honeybee memory: navigation by associative grouping and recall of visual stimuli. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 72,180 -201.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
Related articles in JEB:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Pahl, H. Zhu, W. Pix, J. Tautz, and S. Zhang Circadian timed episodic-like memory a bee knows what to do when, and also where J. Exp. Biol., October 15, 2007; 210(20): 3559 - 3567. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Gil, R. J. De Marco, and R. Menzel Learning reward expectations in honeybees Learn. Mem., July 12, 2007; 14(7): 491 - 496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Clare HONEYBEES MAKE PLANS J. Exp. Biol., November 15, 2006; 209(22): ii - ii. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
