scholarly journals Behavioural Pharmacology in Classical Conditioning of the Proboscis Extension Response in Honeybees (Apis mellifera)

10.3791/2282 ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Felsenberg ◽  
Katrin B. Gehring ◽  
Victoria Antemann ◽  
Dorothea Eisenhardt
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Classical Conditioning ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Proboscis Extension

scholarly journals Prior Experience with Food Reward Influences the Behavioral Responses of the Honeybee Apis mellifera and the Bumblebee Bombus lantschouensis to Tomato Floral Scent

Insects ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 884
Author(s):  
Hong Zhang ◽  
Shuang Shan ◽  
Shaohua Gu ◽  
Xinzheng Huang ◽  
Zibo Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Choice Behavior ◽  
Food Reward ◽  
Floral Scent ◽  
Prior Experience ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
Strong Preference ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Foraging Experience ◽  
Proboscis Extension

Bee responses to floral scent are usually influenced by both innate biases and prior experience. Honeybees are less attracted than bumblebees to tomato flowers. However, little is known about how tomato floral scent regulates the foraging behaviors of honeybees and bumblebees. In this study, the foraging behaviors of the honeybee Apis mellifera and the bumblebee Bombus lantschouensis on tomato flowers in greenhouses were investigated. Whether the two bee species exhibit different responses to tomato floral scent and how innate biases and prior experience influence bee choice behavior were examined. In the greenhouses, honeybees failed to collect pollen from tomato flowers, and their foraging activities decreased significantly over days. Additionally, neither naïve honeybees nor naïve bumblebees showed a preference for tomato floral scent in a Y-tube olfactometer. However, foraging experience in the tomato greenhouses helped bumblebees develop a strong preference for the scent, whereas honeybees with foraging experience continued to show aversion to tomato floral scent. After learning to associate tomato floral scent with a sugar reward in proboscis extension response (PER) assays, both bee species exhibited a preference for tomato floral scent in Y-tube olfactometers. The findings indicated that prior experience with a food reward strongly influenced bee preference for tomato floral scent.

Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera).

1983 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. E. Bitterman ◽  
R. Menzel ◽  
Andrea Fietz ◽  
Sabine Schäfer
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Classical Conditioning ◽  
Proboscis Extension

scholarly journals Effects of Sublethal Concentrations of Chlorpyrifos on Olfactory Learning and Memory Performances in Two Bee Species, Apis mellifera and Apis cerana

Sociobiology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiguo Li ◽  
Meng Li ◽  
Jingnan Huang ◽  
Changsheng Ma ◽  
Linchen Xiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Sucrose Solution ◽  
Apis Cerana ◽  
Lethal Dose ◽  
Olfactory Learning ◽  
Memory Retention ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Learning Abilities ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Ld50 Value

Chlorpyrifos is a widely used organophosphorus insecticide. The acute oral 24 h median lethal dose (LD50) value of chlorpyrifos in Apis mellifera and in Apis cerana was estimated to assess differential acute chlorpyrifos toxicity in the two bee species. The LD50 values of chlorpyrifos in A. mellifera and in A. cerana are 103.4 ng/bee and 81.8 ng/bee, respectively, which suggests A. cerana bees are slightly more sensitive than A. mellifera bees to the toxicity of chlorpyrifos. Doses half the acute LD50 of chlorpyrifos were selected to study behavioral changes in the two bee species using proboscis extension response assay. A. mellifera foragers treated with chlorpyrifos showed significantly lower response to the 10% sucrose solution compared to control bees after 2, 24 and 48 h. Chlorpyrifos significantly impaired the olfactory learning abilities and 2 h memory retention of forager bees regardless of honey bee species, which may affect the foraging success of bees exposed to chlorpyrifos.

scholarly journals Do Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) Form Cognitive Representations of Unconditioned Stimuli?

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiri Li N. Stauch ◽  
Harrington Wells ◽  
Charles I. Abramson
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Experimental Designs ◽  
Not Given ◽  
Cognitive Representation ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Cognitive Representations ◽  
Avoidance Behaviors ◽  
The Us ◽  
Proboscis Extension

Previous research looking at expectancy in animals has used various experimental designs focusing on appetitive and avoidance behaviors. In this study, honey bees (Apis mellifera) were tested ina series of three proboscis extension response (PER) experiments to determine to what degree honey bees’ form a cognitive-representation of an unconditioned stimulus (US). Tthe first experiment, bees were presented with either a 2 sec. sucrose US or 2 sec. honey US appetitive reward and the proboscis-extension duration was measured under each scenario. The PER duration was longer for the honey US even though each US was presented for just 2 sec. Honey bees in the second experiment were tested during extinction trials on a conditioned stimulus (CS) of cinnamon or lavender that was paired with either the sucrose US or honey US in the acquisition trials. The proportion of bees showing the PER response to the CS was recorded for each extinction trial for each US scenario, as was the duration of the proboscis extension for each bee. Neither measure differed between the honey US and sucrose US scenarios, In experiment three, bees were presented with a cinnamon or lavender CS paired with either honey US or sucrose US in a set of acquisition trials, but here the US was not given until after the proboscis was retracted. The PER duration after the CS, and again subsequent after the US, were recorded. While the PER duration after the US was longer for honey, the PER duration after the CS did not differ between honey US and sucrose US.

An Automated Apparatus for Conditioning Proboscis Extension in Honey Bees, Apis mellifera L.

2001 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles I. Abramson ◽  
B. J. Boyd
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Classical Conditioning ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Pavlovian Conditioning ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Automatic Programming ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Series Of Experiments

An apparatus is described for the study of classical conditioning of proboscis extension in harnessed honey bees, Apis mellifera L., that permits automatic programming of events and recording of data. The apparatus is easy to use, accommodates a wide range of stimuli and can be used to study both associative and nonassociative learning. The technique was evaluated in a series of experiments in which the performance of bees was compared under automated and traditional methods of conditioning. The results indicated that the automated apparatus can successfully be used to study Pavlovian conditioning, discrimination learning, and habituation. A unique finding was that the odor of honeycomb can serve as an unconditioned stimulus to support Pavlovian conditioning.

Sensory preconditioning in honeybees

2000 ◽  
Vol 203 (8) ◽  
pp. 1351-1364 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Muller ◽  
B. Gerber ◽  
F. Hellstern ◽  
M. Hammer ◽  
R. Menzel
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Classical Conditioning ◽  
Stimulus Generalization ◽  
Sensory Preconditioning ◽  
Proboscis Extension Reflex ◽  
Single Presentation ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Unpaired Presentation ◽  
Additional Explanation

Sensory preconditioning means that reinforcement of stimulus A after unreinforced exposure to a compound AB also leads to responses to stimulus B. Here, we describe and analyze sensory preconditioning in an insect, the honeybee Apis mellifera. Using two-element odorant compounds in classical conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex, we found (i) that sensory preconditioning is not due to stimulus generalization, (ii) that paired, but not unpaired, presentation of elements supports sensory preconditioning, (iii) that simultaneous, but not sequential, exposure to the elements of the compound supports sensory preconditioning and (iv) that a single presentation of the compound yields maximal sensory preconditioning. The results are discussed with respect to configural and chain-like associative explanations for sensory preconditioning. We suggest an experience-dependent step of compound processing, establishing configural units, as an additional explanation for sensory preconditioning.

scholarly journals Apis mellifera bees acquire long-term olfactory memories within the colony

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana Gil ◽  
Rodrigo J De Marco
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Olfactory Learning ◽  
Proboscis Extension Response ◽  
Proboscis Extension ◽  
Learning Performances

Early studies indicate that Apis mellifera bees learn nectar odours within their colonies. This form of olfactory learning, however, has not been analysed by measuring well-quantifiable learning performances and the question remains whether it constitutes a ‘robust’ form of learning. Hence, we asked whether bees acquire long-term olfactory memories within the colony. To this end, we used the bee proboscis extension response. We found that within-the-nest bees do indeed associate the odour (as the conditioned stimulus) with the sugar (as the unconditioned stimulus) present in the incoming nectar, and that the distribution of scented nectar within the colony allows them to establish long-term olfactory memories. This finding is discussed in the context of efficient foraging.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document