Different effects of reward value and saliency during bumblebee visual search for multiple rewarding targets

Through an animal's eye: the implications of diverse sensory systems in scientific experimentation

'Accounting for the sensory abilities of animals is critical in experimental design.' No researcher would disagree with this statement, yet it is often the case that we inadvertently fall for anthropocentric biases and use ourselves as the reference point. This paper discusses the risks of adopting an anthropocentric view when working with non-human animals, and the unintended consequences this has on our experimental designs and results. To this aim, we provide general examples of anthropocentric bias from different fields of animal research, with a particular focus on animal cognition and behaviour, and lay out the potential consequences of adopting a human-based perspective. Knowledge of the sensory abilities, both in terms of similarities to humans and peculiarities of the investigated species, is crucial to ensure solid conclusions. A more careful consideration of the diverse sensory systems of animals would improve many scientific fields and enhance animal welfare in the laboratory.

Learning modifies attention during bumblebee visual search

Abstract

The role of visual search during bee foraging is relatively understudied compared to the choices made by bees. As bees learn about rewards, we predicted that visual search would be modified to prioritise rewarding flowers. To test this, we ran an experiment testing how bee search differs in the initial and later part of training as they learn about flowers with either higher- or lower-quality rewards. We then ran an experiment to see how this prior training with reward influences their search on a subsequent task with different flowers. We used the time spent inspecting flowers as a measure of attention and found that learning increased attention to rewards and away from unrewarding flowers. Higher quality rewards led to decreased attention to non-flower regions, but lower quality rewards did not. Prior experience of lower rewards also led to more attention to higher rewards compared to unrewarding flowers and non-flower regions. Our results suggest that flowers would elicit differences in bee search behaviour depending on the sugar content of their nectar. They also demonstrate the utility of studying visual search and have important implications for understanding the pollination ecology of flowers with different qualities of reward.

Significance statement

Studies investigating how foraging bees learn about reward typically focus on the choices made by the bees. How bees deploy attention and visual search during foraging is less well studied. We analysed flight videos to characterise visual search as bees learn which flowers are rewarding. We found that learning increases the focus of bees on flower regions. We also found that the quality of the reward a flower offers influences how much bees search in non-flower areas. This means that a flower with lower reward attracts less focussed foraging compared to one with a higher reward. Since flowers do differ in floral reward, this has important implications for how focussed pollinators will be on different flowers. Our approach of looking at search behaviour and attention thus advances our understanding of the cognitive ecology of pollination.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00265-024-03432-z.

Decreased efficiency of pollen collection due to Sulfoxaflor exposure leads to a reduction in the size of bumble bee workers in late European summer

Bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) are important pollinators of wild and crop plants. Despite their importance in the process of fruit and seed production on crop sites, their activity may be impaired due to exposure to pesticides. This species has a yearly life cycle and colony success may rely on effective foraging of workers on ruderal plants late in summer when most crops are no longer flowering. In the current study, we investigated the effect of chronic exposure to Sulfoxaflor on aspects of the foraging behavior of bumble bees and whether Sulfoxaflor influences the body size of workers of B. terrestris in a crop landscape. We found that 2 weeks of continuous exposure to Sulfoxaflor influenced workers’ foraging dynamics and collection of resources. However, there was no evidence that the 5 ppb dose of the pesticide impacted the ability of bees to handle flowers with different traits. Workers from colonies exposed to Sulfoxaflor were smaller. The effect on worker size may be explained as a consequence of the reduced pollen income per unit of worker foraging. Thus, if the effects of Sulfoxaflor applied directly to crops had the same effect as that observed on commercial bumble bees after our chronic exposure, it might negatively impact colony success due to the impact on pollen collection and the reduction in the size of workers.