4.5 Article

Honey bees use social information in waggle dances more fully when foraging errors are more costly

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 125-131

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr165

关键词

Apis mellifera; communication; dance language; reactivation; social information; waggle dance

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture [NYC-191420]
  2. National Science Foundation
  3. University of Texas at Austin
  4. Cornell University's Department of Neurobiology and Behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Social animals can obtain valuable information from group members, but sometimes experience conflicts between this social information and personal information obtained through their own experience. Experienced honey bee foragers (Apis mellifera) have personal information about familiar food sources, and can also obtain social information by following waggle dances. However, it is unclear whether temporarily unemployed foragers whose visits to a food source have been interrupted make full use of social information from dancers or rely primarily on their own personal information to determine whether their familiar food source is active again. We hypothesized that experienced foragers should pay more attention to the social information in waggle dances when foraging errors that can arise from ignoring social information are more costly. We manipulated the cost of mistakenly flying to a familiar but unprofitable food source by training bees to visit feeders that were either close (100 m) or far (1000 m) from the hive and found that temporarily unemployed foragers who had been trained to forage at more distant feeders were more likely to pay attention to social information about food source location. Our findings demonstrate that experienced forager bees can flexibly alter the extent to which they rely on social, as opposed to personal, information and are more likely to fully utilize social information from dancers when foraging errors are more costly.

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