Sonicating bees demonstrate flexible pollen extraction without instrumental learning
AffiliationUniv Arizona, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherOXFORD UNIV PRESS
CitationSwitzer, C. M., Russell, A. L., Papaj, D. R., Combes, S. A., & Hopkins, R. (2019). Sonicating bees demonstrate flexible pollen extraction without instrumental learning. Current Zoology.
Rights© The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Editorial Office, Current Zoology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please email@example.com.
Collection InformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
AbstractPollen collection is necessary for bee survival and important for flowering plant reproduction, yet if and how pollen extraction motor routines are modified with experience is largely unknown. Here, we used an automated reward and monitoring system to evaluate modification in a common pollen-extraction routine, floral sonication. Through a series of laboratory experiments with the bumblebee, Bombus impatiens, we examined whether variation in sonication frequency and acceleration is due to instrumental learning based on rewards, a fixed behavioral response to rewards, and/or a mechanical constraint. We first investigated whether bees could learn to adjust their sonication frequency in response to pollen rewards given only for specified frequency ranges and found no evidence of instrumental learning. However, we found that absence versus receipt of a pollen reward did lead to a predictable behavioral response, which depended on bee size. Finally, we found some evidence of mechanical constraints, in that flower mass affected sonication acceleration (but not frequency) through an interaction with bee size. In general, larger bees showed more flexibility in sonication frequency and acceleration, potentially reflecting a size-based constraint on the range over which smaller bees can modify frequency and acceleration. Overall, our results show that although bees did not display instrumental learning of sonication frequency, their sonication motor routine is nevertheless flexible.
NoteOpen access article
VersionFinal published version
SponsorsAir Force Office of Scientific Research Grant [FA9550-14-1-0398]; Komen Endowed Chair; National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship; University of Washington Data Science Grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; Washington Research Foundation; National Science Foundation grant [CAREER IOS-1253677]; Graduate and Professional Student Council of the University of Arizona