4.5 Article

Birth weight and sucrose responsiveness predict cognitive skills of honeybee foragers

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 84, 期 2, 页码 305-308

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.05.011

关键词

Apis mellifera; birth weight; division of labour; foraging; honeybee; learning; maternal provisioning; sucrose responsiveness

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [SCHE 1573/2_1, SCHE 1573/3_1, SCHE 1573/4_1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Honeybees, Apis mellifera, can differ considerably in their birth weights but the consequences of these weight differences for behaviour are unknown. I investigated how these birth weight differences affected their cognitive skills when the bees reached foraging age. Individual sucrose responsiveness measured by the proboscis extension response is a strong determinant of appetitive olfactory learning performance in honeybees. Most of the observed learning differences between individuals or between genetic bee strains correlate with differences in their sucrose responsiveness. My second aim was therefore to investigate whether the sucrose responsiveness of newly emerged bees could predict the learning behaviour of the bees 3 weeks later. Both birth weight and sucrose responsiveness measured at emergence could predict olfactory learning scores as demonstrated by significant positive correlations. Heavy bees and bees with high sucrose responsiveness later learned better than lighter individuals or bees with lower responsiveness to sucrose at emergence. These results demonstrate for the first time a fundamental relationship between sensory responsiveness and morphology at emergence and later cognitive skills in insects. Because sensory responsiveness is closely linked to division of labour in honeybees, differences in weight and sucrose responsiveness at emergence might be involved in regulating division of labour. (C) 2012 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据