Odor discrimination in classical conditioning of proboscis extension in two stingless bee species in comparison to Africanized honeybees.
Learning in insects has been extensively studied using different experimental approaches. One of them, the proboscis extension response (PER) paradigm, is particularly well suited for quantitative studies of cognitive abilities of honeybees under controlled conditions. The goal of this study was to analyze the capability of three eusocial bee species to be olfactory conditioned in the PER paradigm. We worked with two Brazilian stingless bees species, Melipona quadrifasciata and Scaptotrigona aff. depilis, and with the invasive Africanized honeybee, Apis mellifera. These three species present very different recruitment strategies, which could be related with different odor-learning abilities. We evaluated their gustatory responsiveness and learning capability to discriminate floral odors. Gustatory responsiveness was similar for the three species, although S. aff. depilis workers showed fluctuations along the experimental period. Results for the learning assays revealed that M. quadrifasciata workers can be conditioned to discriminate floral odors in a classical differential conditioning protocol and that this discrimination is maintained 15 min after training. During conditioning, Africanized honeybees presented the highest discrimination, for M. quadrifasciata it was intermediate, and S. aff. depilis bees presented no discrimination. The differences found are discussed considering the putative different learning abilities and procedure effect for each species.
Mc Cabe
S I
SI
Grupo de Estudio de Insectos Sociales, Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental, IFIBYNE-CONICET. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Pabellón II, Ciudad Universitaria, (C1428EHA), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hartfelder
K
K
Santana
W C
WC
Farina
W M
WM
D000818:Animals; D001245:Association Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D001516:Bees / Q000502:physiology*; D003214:Conditioning, Classical / Q000502:physiology*; D004193:Discrimination Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D005247:Feeding Behavior / Q000502:physiology; D009812:Odorants; D012201:Reward; D012679:Sense Organs / Q000502:physiology; D012903:Smell / Q000502:physiology*; D013045:Species Specificity; D013649:Taste / Q000502:physiology
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Mar 22;274(1611):895-8
17251108
Annu Rev Neurosci. 1996;19:379-404
8833448
Z Vgl Physiol. 1949;31(3):348-412
18131263
Science. 2006 Oct 27;314(5799):642-5
17068261
J Comp Physiol A. 1998 Apr;182(4):489-500
9565478
Science. 1978 Sep 15;201(4360):1030-2
17743636
J Comp Physiol A. 1985 Sep;157(2):263-77
3939242
Neuron. 1998 Feb;20(2):185-95
9491981
J Comp Physiol A. 1999 Aug;185(2):207-13
10488557
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004 Nov;28(7):663-74
15555676
Zoolog Sci. 2003 Dec;20(12 ):1447-54
14709809
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Sep 22;272(1575):1923-8
16191598
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Feb 1;5(2):62-71
11166636
J Comp Psychol. 1983 Jun;97(2):107-19
6872507
Physiol Behav. 1997 Sep;62(3):657-74
9272679
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004 Jul;190(7):549-60
15067557
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2006 Dec;192(12):1335-48
16964495
Brain Behav Evol. 2002;59(1-2):68-86
12097861
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Dec;13(6):726-35
14662375
J Exp Biol. 2005 Oct;208(Pt 19):3731-7
16169950
Anim Behav. 2000 May;59(5):1025-1034
10860530
J Exp Biol. 2000 Jul;203(Pt 13):2025-38
10851119