Nesting ecology does not explain slow-fast cognitive differences among honeybee species

What is really social about social insect cognition?

It is often assumed that social life imposes specific cognitive demands for animals to communicate, cooperate and compete, ultimately requiring larger brains. The “social brain” hypothesis is supported by data in primates and some other vertebrates, but doubts have been raised over its applicability to other taxa, and in particular insects. Here, we review recent advances in insect cognition research and ask whether we can identify cognitive capacities that are specific to social species. One difficulty involved in testing the social brain hypothesis in insects is that many of the model species used in cognition studies are highly social (eusocial), and comparatively little work has been done in insects that live in less integrated social structures or that are solitary. As more species are studied, it is becoming clear that insects share a rich cognitive repertoire and that these abilities are not directly related to their level of social complexity. Moreover, some of the cognitive mechanisms involved in many social interactions may not differ from those involved in non-social behaviors. We discuss the need for a more comparative and neurobiologically grounded research agenda to better understand the evolution of insect brains and cognition.

Adding the neuro to cognition: from food storing to nest building

Typically, investigations of animal cognition couple careful experimental manipulations with examination of the animal's behavioural responses. Sometimes those questions have included attempts to describe the neural underpinnings of the behavioural outputs. Over the past 25 years, behaviours that involve spatial learning and memory (such as navigation and food storing) has been one context in which such dual or correlated investigations have been both accessible and productive. Here I review some of that work and where it has led. Because of the wealth of data and insights gained from that work and song learning before it, it seems that it might also be useful to try to add some neurobiology to other systems in animal cognition. I finish then, with a description of recent work on the cognition and neurobiology of avian nest building. It is still relatively early days but asking questions about the cognition of nest building has already shown both neural correlates of nest building and that learning and memory play a much greater role in this behaviour than previously considered. While it is not yet clear how putting these components together will be synergistic, the examples of song learning and food storing provide encouragement. Perhaps this might be true for other behaviours too?

Slow-Fast Cognitive Phenotypes and Their Significance for Social Behavior: What Can We Learn From Honeybees?

Cognitive variation is proposed to be the fundamental underlying factor that drives behavioral variation, yet it is still to be fully integrated with the observed variation at other phenotypic levels that has recently been unified under the common pace-of-life framework. This cognitive and the resulting behavioral diversity is especially significant in the context of a social group, the performance of which is a collective outcome of this diversity. In this review, we argue about the utility of classifying cognitive traits along a slow-fast continuum in the larger context of the pace-of-life framework. Using Tinbergen’s explanatory framework for different levels of analyses and drawing from the large body of knowledge about honeybee behavior, we discuss the observed interindividual variation in cognitive traits and slow-fast cognitive phenotypes from an adaptive, evolutionary, mechanistic and developmental perspective. We discuss the challenges in this endeavor and suggest possible next steps in terms of methodological, statistical and theoretical approaches to move the field forward for an integrative understanding of how slow-fast cognitive differences, by influencing collective behavior, impact social evolution.