Individual differences in learning and biogenic amine levels influence the behavioural division between foraging honeybee scouts and recruits.
exploration-exploitation trade-off
foraging
honeybee
latent inhibition
non-associative learning
scout
tyramine
Journal
The Journal of animal ecology
ISSN: 1365-2656
Titre abrégé: J Anim Ecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0376574
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
18
04
2018
accepted:
31
08
2018
pubmed:
6
10
2018
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
6
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Animals must effectively balance the time they spend exploring the environment for new resources and exploiting them. One way that social animals accomplish this balance is by allocating these two tasks to different individuals. In honeybees, foraging is divided between scouts, which tend to explore the landscape for novel resources, and recruits, which tend to exploit these resources. Exploring the variation in cognitive and physiological mechanisms of foraging behaviour will provide a deeper understanding of how the division of labour is regulated in social insect societies. Here, we uncover how honeybee foraging behaviour may be shaped by predispositions in performance of latent inhibition (LI), which is a form of non-associative learning by which individuals learn to ignore familiar information. We compared LI between scouts and recruits, hypothesizing that differences in learning would correlate with differences in foraging behaviour. Scouts seek out and encounter many new odours while locating novel resources, while recruits continuously forage from the same resource, even as its quality degrades. We found that scouts show stronger LI than recruits, possibly reflecting their need to discriminate forage quality. We also found that scouts have significantly elevated tyramine compared to recruits. Furthermore, after associative odour training, recruits have significantly diminished octopamine in their brains compared to scouts. These results suggest that individual variation in learning behaviour shapes the phenotypic behavioural differences between different types of honeybee foragers. These differences in turn have important consequences for how honeybee colonies interact with their environment. Uncovering the proximate mechanisms that influence individual variation in foraging behaviour is crucial for understanding the ecological context in which societies evolve.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30289166
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12911
pmc: PMC6379132
mid: NIHMS992029
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biogenic Amines
0
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.5885263']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
236-246Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : F32 GM126728
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM113967
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2018 British Ecological Society.
Références
J Comp Psychol. 2000 Mar;114(1):86-97
pubmed: 10739314
Front Syst Neurosci. 2017 Oct 24;11:77
pubmed: 29114209
J Comp Physiol A. 1998 Apr;182(4):489-500
pubmed: 9565478
Science. 2012 Mar 9;335(6073):1225-8
pubmed: 22403390
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Jan;13(1):36-43
pubmed: 19058992
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2002 Sep;188(8):603-10
pubmed: 12355236
Learn Mem. 1998 May-Jun;5(1-2):146-56
pubmed: 10454379
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Dec 22;281(1797):
pubmed: 25355476
Naturwissenschaften. 2007 Apr;94(4):247-67
pubmed: 17171388
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Feb 1;5(2):62-71
pubmed: 11166636
J Comp Physiol A. 1999 May;184(5):471-9
pubmed: 10377980
Annu Rev Neurosci. 1996;19:379-404
pubmed: 8833448
J Anim Ecol. 2019 Feb;88(2):236-246
pubmed: 30289166
J Neurosci. 2012 May 23;32(21):7225-31
pubmed: 22623667
J Comp Physiol A. 1999 Jul;185(1):1-10
pubmed: 10450609
Behav Genet. 2001 May;31(3):275-85
pubmed: 11699600
J Neurobiol. 2003 Feb 5;54(2):406-16
pubmed: 12500315
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Jan;19(1):46-54
pubmed: 25487706
Psychol Bull. 1973 Jun;79(6):398-407
pubmed: 4575029
Front Syst Neurosci. 2017 Aug 08;11:55
pubmed: 28848405
J Vis Exp. 2014 Sep 08;(91):e51057
pubmed: 25225822
J Hered. 2004 Nov-Dec;95(6):481-91
pubmed: 15475393
Anim Cogn. 2010 Nov;13(6):805-15
pubmed: 20521073
Genetics. 1995 Dec;141(4):1537-45
pubmed: 8601492
J Comp Psychol. 1983 Jun;97(2):107-19
pubmed: 6872507
J Exp Biol. 2017 May 15;220(Pt 10):1925-1930
pubmed: 28314750
Anim Behav. 1997 Sep;54(3):615-27
pubmed: 9299046
Annu Rev Entomol. 2005;50:447-77
pubmed: 15355245
J Neurosci. 2003 Jun 15;23(12):5370-80
pubmed: 12832563
J Exp Biol. 2006 Jul;209(Pt 14):2774-84
pubmed: 16809468
J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1959 Aug;52:415-9
pubmed: 14418647
Anim Cogn. 2011 May;14(3):309-16
pubmed: 21203793
J Exp Biol. 2017 Apr 15;220(Pt 8):1443-1450
pubmed: 28167800
J Hered. 2000 Nov-Dec;91(6):474-9
pubmed: 11218085
Behav Brain Res. 2002 Nov 15;136(2):545-53
pubmed: 12429417
Neuroscience. 1993 May;54(1):5-9
pubmed: 8515846
Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 2003 Sep;54(1):1-13
pubmed: 12942511
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2005 Dec;191(12):1115-20
pubmed: 16049699
Theor Popul Biol. 1976 Apr;9(2):129-36
pubmed: 1273796
J Neurosci. 2013 Mar 27;33(13):5686-97
pubmed: 23536082
Behav Neural Biol. 1979 Mar;25(3):387-97
pubmed: 464981
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Dec;13(6):726-35
pubmed: 14662375
J Insect Physiol. 2006 Oct;52(10):1083-92
pubmed: 17028016
R Soc Open Sci. 2017 Aug 30;4(8):170344
pubmed: 28878985