Bees in two-armed bandit situations: foraging choices and possible decision mechanisms

In multi-armed bandit situations, gamblers must choose repeatedly between options that differ in reward probability, without prior information on the options' relative profitability. Foraging bumblebees encounter similar situations when choosing repeatedly among flower species that differ in food rewards. Unlike proficient gamblers, bumblebees do not choose the highest-rewarding option exclusively. This incomplete exclusiveness may reflect an adaptive sampling strategy. A cost--benefit analysis predicts decreased sampling levels with increasing differences in mean profitability between the available food sources. We simulated two-armed bandit situations in laboratory experiments to test this prediction. Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris L.) made 300 foraging visits to blue and yellow artificial flowers that dispensed sucrose solution according to seven probabilistic reward schedules. Reward schedules varied in profitability differences between the two feeding options. As predicted, the bees specialized more on the higher-rewarding food type (and thus sampled the alternative less) when the mean reward difference between the feeding options was larger. Choice ratios of individual bees were linearly related to the reward ratios they had experienced. It has been suggested that the behavioral mechanism underlying incomplete exclusiveness may involve simple rules of thumb that do not require long-term memory. However, the bees' response to recent foraging experience (rewarded and non-rewarded visits) differed between the beginning and the end of observation sessions and between treatments. Simulations of the Rescorla-Wagner difference learning rule reproduced the main trends of the results. These findings suggest that the observed incomplete exclusiveness results from associative learning involving long-term memory. Copyright 2002.

[1]  R. Menzel,et al.  Memory dynamics and foraging strategies of honeybees , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[2]  L A Real,et al.  Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture , 1991, Science.

[3]  R. Menzel Memory dynamics in the honeybee , 1999, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[4]  J. Gibbon,et al.  Tracking a fluctuating environment: a study of sampling , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  J C Stout,et al.  Foraging bumblebees avoid flowers already visited by conspecifics or by other bumblebee species , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  M. Bitterman,et al.  Choice in honeybees as a function of the probability of reward , 1993 .

[7]  Richard F. Green,et al.  Stochastic Models of Optimal Foraging , 1987 .

[8]  R. R. Bush,et al.  A Mathematical Model for Simple Learning , 1951 .

[9]  D. Cohen,et al.  The equilibrium distribution of optimal search and sampling effort of foraging animals in patchy environments , 1993 .

[10]  L. Harder,et al.  Response of traplining bumble bees to competition experiments: shifts in feeding location and efficiency , 2004, Oecologia.

[11]  T. Keasar,et al.  Overnight memory retention of foraging skills by bumblebees is imperfect , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[12]  Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi,et al.  Gambling in a rigged casino: The adversarial multi-armed bandit problem , 1995, Proceedings of IEEE 36th Annual Foundations of Computer Science.

[13]  A. Houston,et al.  Optimal foraging and learning , 1985 .

[14]  David W. Stephens,et al.  On economically tracking a variable environment , 1987 .

[15]  B. Peleg,et al.  Automata, matching and foraging behavior of bees , 1995 .

[16]  G M Heyman,et al.  A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  Bernd Heinrich,et al.  "Majoring" and "Minoring" by Foraging Bumblebees, Bombus Vagans: An Experimental Analysis , 1979 .

[18]  R. Herrnstein On the law of effect. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  L. Real Information Processing and the Evolutionary Ecology of Cognitive Architecture , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[20]  Tamar Keasar,et al.  Location and Color Learning in Bumblebees in a Two-Phase Conditioning Experiment , 2001, Journal of Insect Behavior.

[21]  J. Erber,et al.  The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) , 1998, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[22]  T. Keasar The spatial distribution of nonrewarding artificial flowers affects pollinator attraction , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[23]  G. Estabrook,et al.  Strategy for a Predator Encountering a Model-Mimic System , 1974, The American Naturalist.

[24]  P Killeen,et al.  The matching law. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  Russell D. Gray,et al.  Sparrows, matching and the ideal free distribution: can biological and psychological approaches be synthesized? , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  John McNamara,et al.  A simple model of information use in the exploitation of patchily distributed food , 1985, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  U. Greggers,et al.  Matching behavior of honeybees in a multiple-choice situation: The differential effect of environmental stimuli on the choice process , 1997 .

[28]  R. R. Bush,et al.  A mathematical model for simple learning. , 1951, Psychological review.