Learning about larceny: experience can bias bumble bees to rob nectar
Learning about larceny: experience can bias bumble bees to rob nectar
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00265-018-2478-6
复制
发表时间：
2018-04-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Muth, Felicity
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barker, Jessica L.;Dornhaus, Anna;Muth, Felicity
喂食花蜜的动物如何在不同的处理花卉的策略中做出选择？这样的决定不仅会影响动物的健康(通过摄取食物)，也会影响植物的健康：许多动物可以选择通过在花朵底部咀嚼的小孔来“掠夺”花蜜，而不是通过花朵的开口“合法”地收集花蜜，从而无法接触到花粉。尽管这些觅食花蜜的策略在物种内的差异是有充分记录的，但人们很大程度上不知道为什么一些个体专门(至少在短期内)擅长抢劫，另一些个体在合法探视时，而另一些个体在这些行为之间切换。我们调查了通过先前制造的洞(二次抢劫)来掠夺花蜜的倾向是否受到先前觅食经验的影响。在一项实验室实验中，我们训练了几组大黄蜂(熊蜂)，要么合法地造访人造花，要么进行二次抢劫；第三组没有接受任何训练。在随后的花卉访问中，所有蜜蜂都有机会使用这两种觅食策略中的任何一种。我们发现，经验确实影响了蜜蜂二次抢劫的倾向：受过训练的蜜蜂更有可能采用它们以前经历过的策略。未经训练的蜜蜂最初尝试了这两种策略，但随着时间的推移，它们更喜欢二次抢劫。经验也增加了蜜蜂从花朵中获取花蜜的成功率，但只有在合法造访花朵的情况下(不太受欢迎的策略)。总体而言，这些发现突显了动物在觅食时选择替代处理策略的经验的重要性，并有助于解释长期观察到的相同种群个体之间盗蜜行为的差异。意义陈述能够采用替代行为的动物通常只使用其中一种。一个广为流传但鲜为人知的例子是花蜜喂食，采集者可以选择通过花朵的开口“合法”收集花蜜，或者通过在花朵底部咀嚼的洞来“掠夺”花蜜。我们在实验室实验中表明，先前的觅食经验会使大黄蜂从先前存在的洞穴中掠夺花蜜的选择产生偏差(即“二次”掠夺)。最初接触只能被掠夺或只能合法访问的花朵会增加蜜蜂随后采用这种行为的倾向，代价是对替代行为进行采样，即使其他蜜蜂似乎更喜欢替代行为。这些结果有助于解释实地观察，蜜蜂往往专门从事一种单一的采集花蜜的行为，并且采取的行为存在个体差异，有助于我们从动物的角度理解窃取花蜜的行为。
How do nectar-feeding animals choose among alternative flower-handling tactics? Such decisions have consequences not only for animal fitness (via food intake) but for plant fitness as well: many animals can choose to "rob" nectar through holes chewed in the base of a flower instead of "legitimately" collecting it through the flower's opening, thus failing to contact pollen. Although variation within a species in these nectar-foraging tactics is well documented, it is largely unknown why some individuals specialize (at least in the short term) on robbing, others on legitimate visitation, and others switch between these behaviors. We investigated whether the tendency to rob nectar through previously-made holes (secondary robbing) is influenced by prior foraging experience. In a laboratory experiment, we trained groups of bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) either to visit artificial flowers legitimately or to secondary-rob; a third group received no training. On subsequent visits to flowers, all bees had the opportunity to use either foraging tactic. We found that experience did affect bees' tendency to secondary-rob: trained bees were more likely to adopt the tactic they had previously experienced. Untrained bees initially sampled both tactics, but over time preferred to secondary-rob. Experience also increased bees' success at gaining nectar from flowers, but only when visiting flowers legitimately (the less preferred tactic). Overall, these findings highlight the importance of experience in animals' choices of alternative handling tactics while foraging and help explain long-standing observations of variation in nectar-robbing behavior among individuals of the same population.Significance statementAnimals that can adopt alternative behaviors frequently use only one of them. A widespread but little understood example of this is nectar feeding, in which foragers can choose between "legitimately" collecting nectar through a flower's opening or "robbing" nectar via holes chewed through a flower's base. We showed in a laboratory experiment that prior foraging experience can bias bumble bees' choices to rob nectar from pre-existing holes (i.e., to "secondary"-rob). Initial exposure to flowers that could only be robbed or only be legitimately visited increased bees' tendency to subsequently adopt that behavior at the expense of sampling the alternative behavior, even when other bees seemed to prefer the alternative. These results help explain field observations that bees often specialize on a single nectar-collecting behavior and that there is individual variation in which behavior is adopted, contributing to our understanding of nectar robbing from the animals' perspective.