IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v26y2015i5p1335-1344..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The value of information in floral cues: bumblebee learning of floral size cues

Author

Listed:
  • Carla J. Essenberg
  • Rebekah A. Easter
  • Rachel A. Simmons
  • Daniel R. Papaj

Abstract

In many plant species, larger flowers offer larger or higher quality rewards to visitors, and flower visitors preferentially visit these larger, more rewarding flowers. Limited evidence suggests that plants in which flower size provides more reliable information about reward value have higher reproductive success than plants in which flower size offers less reliable information. We tested whether bumblebees could learn to respond to flower size when it was an informative reward cue while simultaneously learning not to respond to it when it was not informative. We also tested whether bees would develop a preference for a flower type that provided reward cues over one that did not. Bees were allowed to forage on an artificial array containing 2 flower types, each with a unique color and scent. In the informative flower type, large flowers contained sucrose rewards, whereas small flowers contained quinine solution (a deterrent). In the uninformative flower type, both flower sizes were equally likely to contain sucrose or quinine. Bees learned to prefer large flowers in the informative flower type and to be indifferent to flower size in the uninformative type. However, contrary to expectations, bees did not develop a preference for the informative type. These results suggest that although bees may benefit from floral cues that give information about rewards, plants offering these cues may not receive more flower visits than plants that do not.

Suggested Citation

  • Carla J. Essenberg & Rebekah A. Easter & Rachel A. Simmons & Daniel R. Papaj, 2015. "The value of information in floral cues: bumblebee learning of floral size cues," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1335-1344.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:26:y:2015:i:5:p:1335-1344.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arv061
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars Chittka & Adrian G. Dyer & Fiola Bock & Anna Dornhaus, 2003. "Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy," Nature, Nature, vol. 424(6947), pages 388-388, July.
    2. James G. Burns & James D. Thomson, 2006. "A test of spatial memory and movement patterns of bumblebees at multiple spatial and temporal scales," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(1), pages 48-55, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachel Arnon & Tamar Keasar & Dan Cohen & Avi Shmida, 2006. "Vertical Orientation and Color Contrast and Choices by Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris L.)," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000608, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Rachel Arnon & Tamar Keasar & Dan Cohen & Avi Shmida, 2006. "Vertical Orientation and Color Contrast and Choices by Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris L.)," Discussion Paper Series dp439, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    3. Elva J H Robinson & Nigel R Franks & Samuel Ellis & Saki Okuda & James A R Marshall, 2011. "A Simple Threshold Rule Is Sufficient to Explain Sophisticated Collective Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Kazuharu Ohashi & Alison Leslie & James D. Thomson, 2013. "Trapline foraging by bumble bees: VII. Adjustments for foraging success following competitor removal," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(3), pages 768-778.
    5. Noam Bar-Shai & Tamar Keasar & Avi Shmida, 2010. "The Use of Numerical Information by Bees in Foraging Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp555, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    6. Peter Cassey & Andrew Heathcote & Scott D Brown, 2014. "Brain and Behavior in Decision-Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Barbara Casillas-Pérez & Katarína Boďová & Anna V. Grasse & Gašper Tkačik & Sylvia Cremer, 2023. "Dynamic pathogen detection and social feedback shape collective hygiene in ants," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Filip Gesiarz & Donal Cahill & Tali Sharot, 2019. "Evidence accumulation is biased by motivation: A computational account," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, June.
    9. Dyer, A.G. & Dorin, A. & Reinhardt, V. & Garcia, J.E. & Rosa, M.G.P., 2014. "Bee reverse-learning behavior and intra-colony differences: Simulations based on behavioral experiments reveal benefits of diversity," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 277(C), pages 119-131.
    10. Kazuharu Ohashi & James D. Thomson, 2013. "Trapline foraging by bumble bees: VI. Behavioral alterations under speed–accuracy trade-offs," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(1), pages 182-189.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:26:y:2015:i:5:p:1335-1344.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.