Effect of octopamine manipulation on honeybee decision making: reward and cost differences associated with foraging

Effects of aversive conditioning on expression of physiological stress in honey bees (Apis mellifera)

Stress is defined as any deviation from an organism's baseline physiological levels. Therefore, introduction of new stimuli and information, such as in learning, can be defined as a stressor. A large body of research exists examining the role that stress plays in learning, but virtually none addresses whether or not learning itself is a measurable cause of stress. The current study used a wide variety of learning centric stress responses. Researchers examined changes in expression of ten stress and learning related genes in various physiological systems in domesticated honey bees (Apis mellifera) as a result of exposure to an aversive conditioning task. Gene expression was examined using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction following the learning task. Results indicate that learning affects expression of some stress related genes.

Appetitive reversal learning differences of two honey bee subspecies with different foraging behaviors

We aimed to examine mechanistically the observed foraging differences across two honey bee, Apis mellifera, subspecies using the proboscis extension response assay. Specifically, we compared differences in appetitive reversal learning ability between honey bee subspecies: Apis mellifera caucasica (Pollman), and Apis mellifera syriaca (Skorikov) in a "common garden" apiary. It was hypothesized that specific learning differences could explain previously observed foraging behavior differences of these subspecies: A.m. caucasica switches between different flower color morphs in response to reward variability, and A.m. syriaca does not switch. We suggest that flower constancy allows reduced exposure by minimizing search and handling time, whereas plasticity is important when maximizing harvest in preparation for long winter is at a premium. In the initial or Acquisition phase of the test we examined specifically discrimination learning, where bees were trained to respond to a paired conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus and not to respond to a second conditioned stimulus that is not followed by an unconditioned stimulus. We found no significant differences among the subspecies in the Acquisition phase in appetitive learning. During the second, Reversal phase of the experiment, where flexibility in association was tested, the paired and unpaired conditioned stimuli were reversed. During the Reversal phase A.m. syriaca showed a reduced ability to learn the reverse association in the appetitive learning task. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that A.m. syriaca foragers cannot change the foraging choice because of lack of flexibility in appetitive associations under changing contingencies. Interestingly, both subspecies continued responding to the previously rewarded conditioned stimulus in the reversal phase. We discuss potential ecological correlates and molecular underpinnings of these differences in learning across the two subspecies. In addition, in a supplemental experiment we demonstrated that these differences in appetitive reversal learning do not occur in other learning contexts.

An Inconvenient Truth: Some Neglected Issues in Invertebrate Learning

The burgeoning field of invertebrate behavior is moving into what was the realm of human psychology concepts. This invites comparative studies not only between invertebrate and vertebrate species but also among the diverse taxa within the invertebrates, diverse even when considering only the insects. In order to make lasting progress two issues must be addressed. The first is inconsistent use of fundamental terms defining learning. The second is a focus on similarities, giving little attention to dissimilarities. In addition, much work is needed on whether behavioral similarities are grounded in the same neuronal architecture when considering disparate phyla. These concerns identify are "inconvenient truths" that weaken comparative behavioral analysis.

The effects of ingested aqueous aluminum on floral fidelity and foraging strategy in honey bees (Apis mellifera)

Pollinator decline is of international concern because of the economic services these organisms provide. Commonly cited sources of decline are toxicants, habitat fragmentation, and parasites. Toxicant exposure can occur through uptake and distribution from plant tissues and resources such as pollen and nectar. Metals such as aluminum can be distributed to pollinators and other herbivores through this route especially in acidified or mined areas. A free-flying artificial flower patch apparatus was used to understand how two concentrations of aluminum (2mg/L and 20mg/L) may affect the learning, orientation, and foraging behaviors of honey bees (Apis mellifera) in Turkey. The results show that a single dose of aluminum immediately affects the floral decision making of honey bees potentially by altering sucrose perception, increasing activity level, or reducing the likelihood of foraging on safer or uncontaminated resource patches. We conclude that aluminum exposure may be detrimental to foraging behaviors and potentially to other ecologically relevant behaviors.

Operant Conditioning in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.): The Cap Pushing Response

The honey bee has been an important model organism for studying learning and memory. More recently, the honey bee has become a valuable model to understand perception and cognition. However, the techniques used to explore psychological phenomena in honey bees have been limited to only a few primary methodologies such as the proboscis extension reflex, sting extension reflex, and free flying target discrimination-tasks. Methods to explore operant conditioning in bees and other invertebrates are not as varied as with vertebrates. This may be due to the availability of a suitable response requirement. In this manuscript we offer a new method to explore operant conditioning in honey bees: the cap pushing response (CPR). We used the CPR to test for difference in learning curves between novel auto-shaping and more traditional explicit-shaping. The CPR protocol requires bees to exhibit a novel behavior by pushing a cap to uncover a food source. Using the CPR protocol we tested the effects of both explicit-shaping and auto-shaping techniques on operant conditioning. The goodness of fit and lack of fit of these data to the Rescorla-Wagner learning-curve model, widely used in classical conditioning studies, was tested. The model fit well to both control and explicit-shaping results, but only for a limited number of trials. Learning ceased rather than continuing to asymptotically approach the physiological most accurate possible. Rate of learning differed between shaped and control bee treatments. Learning rate was about 3 times faster for shaped bees, but for all measures of proficiency control and shaped bees reached the same level. Auto-shaped bees showed one-trial learning rather than the asymptotic approach to a maximal efficiency. However, in terms of return-time, the auto-shaped bees’ learning did not carry over to the covered-well test treatments.