Learning foraging tasks by bees: a comparison between social and solitary species

Abstract Social behaviour requires recognition of and communication among colony members. These types of interactions may select for increased learning and memory capabilities in highly social species. The advanced learning capabilities associated with social life may also promote an increased capacity for learning other specific tasks, such as foraging. Therefore, social bees may show a higher capacity for learning and remembering floral characteristics relative to this same capacity in solitary bees. To test this prediction, the performance of a social species of bumblebee, Bombus bimaculatus (Apidae), and a solitary species of carpenter bee, Xylocopa virginica (Anthophoridae) was compared in three experiments in which bees had to learn to discriminate between rewarding and non-rewarding flowers that differed in colour. In all three experiments bumblebees showed higher learning rates compared with carpenter bees. However, both species showed similar levels of overnight memory retention. The results suggest that social bees have better learning capabilities compared with solitary bees.

[1]  A. C. Lewis.  Memory Constraints and Flower Choice in Pieris rapae , 1986, Science.

[2]  G. Pyke.  Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review , 1984 .

[3]  B. Rathcke.  Interactions for Pollination among Coflowering Shrubs , 1988 .

[4]  B. Heinrich.  Learning in Invertebrates , 1984 .

[5]  Daniel R. Papaj,et al.  ECOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY ASPECTS OF LEARNING IN PHYTOPHAGOUS INSECTS , 1989 .

[6]  A. Kamil,et al.  A Comparative-Ecological Approach to the Study of Learning , 1988 .

[7]  Graham H. Pyke,et al.  Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests , 1977, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[8]  John R. Krebs,et al.  Foraging in a changing environment: An experiment with starlings ("sturnus vulgaris"). , 1987 .

[9]  L. Real,et al.  Short-Term Energy Maximization and Risk-Aversion in Bumble Bees: A Reply to Possingham Et Al. , 1990 .

[10]  S. Healy,et al.  Spatial memory of paridae: comparison of a storing and a non-storing species, the coal tit, Parus ater, and the great tit, P. major , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  James L. Gould,et al.  The Role of Learning in Honey Bee Foraging , 1987 .

[12]  M E Bitterman,et al.  The comparative analysis of learning. , 1975, Science.

[13]  J. Thomson.  Spatial and Temporal Components of Resource Assessment by Flower-Feeding Insects , 1981 .

[14]  T. Schoener.  A Brief History of Optimal Foraging Ecology , 1987 .

[15]  Maureen L. Stanton,et al.  Short-term learning and the searching accuracy of egg-laying butterflies , 1984, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  T. Laverty,et al.  Flower handling by bumblebees: a comparison of specialists and generalists , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  K. Strickler.  SPECIALIZATION AND FORAGING EFFICIENCY OF SOLITARY BEES , 1979 .

[18]  S. Shettleworth.  Constraints on Learning , 1972 .

[19]  T. Laverty.  The flower-visiting behaviour of bumble bees: floral complexity and learning. , 1980 .

[20]  M. Bitterman.  Vertebrate-Invertebrate Comparisons , 1988 .

[21]  A. Kamil,et al.  A comparative study of cache recovery by three corvid species , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  Bernd Heinrich,et al.  THE FORAGING SPECIALIZATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL BUMBLEBEES , 1976 .

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

[24]  E. Linsley.  The ecology of solitary bees , 1958 .

[25]  L. Real.  UNCERTAINTY AND POLLINATOR-PLANT INTERACTIONS: THE FORAGING BEHAVIOR OF BEES AND WASPS ON ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS' , 1981 .

[26]  D. W. Schemske,et al.  Limits to specialization and coevolution in plant-animal mutualisms , 1983 .