Differences in olfactory sensitivity and odor detection correlate with foraging task specialization in honeybees Apis mellifera.

Division of labor is central to the ecological success of social insects. Among honeybees foragers, specialization for collecting nectar or pollen correlates with their sensitivity to gustatory stimuli (e.g. sugars). We hypothesize that pollen and nectar foragers also differ in their sensitivity to odors, and therefore in their likelihood to show odor-mediated responses. To assess foragers sensitivity to natural odors, we quantified the conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex (PER) to increasing concentrations (0.001; 0.01; 0.1; 1 M) of linalool or nonanal. Furthermore, we compared electroantennogram (EAG) recordings to correlate bees' conditioned responses with the electrophysiological responses of their antennae. To further explore differences of the antennal response of foragers in relation to task-related odors, we registered EAG signals for two behaviorally ''meaningful'' odors that mediate pollen collection: fresh pollen odors and the brood pheromone (E)-ß-ocimene. Pollen foragers performed better than nectar foragers in PER conditioning trials when linalool and nonanal were presented at low concentrations (0.001, 0.01 M). Consistently, their antennae showed stronger EAG signals (higher amplitudes) to these odors, suggesting that differences in sensitivity can be explained at the periphery of the olfactory system. Pollen and nectar foragers detect pollen odors differently, but not (E)-ß-ocimene. Pollen volatiles evoked EAG signals with hyper and depolarization components. In pollen foragers, the contribution of the hyperpolarization component was higher than in nectar foragers. We discuss our findings in terms of adaptive advantages to learn subtle olfactory cues that influence the ability to better identify/discriminate food sources.

Young honeybees show learned preferences after experiencing adulterated pollen.

Pollen selection affects honeybee colony development and productivity. Considering that pollen is consumed by young in-hive bees, and not by foragers, we hypothesized that young bees learn pollen cues and adjust their preferences to the most suitable pollens. To assess whether young bees show preferences based on learning for highly or poorly suitable pollens, we measured consumption preferences for two pure monofloral pollens after the bees had experienced one of them adulterated with a deterrent (amygdalin or quinine) or a phagostimulant (linoleic acid). Preferences were obtained from nurse-aged bees confined in cages and from nurse bees in open colonies. Furthermore, we tested the bees' orientation in a Y-maze using a neutral odour (Linalool or Nonanal) that had been previously associated with an amygdalin-adulterated pollen. Consumption preferences of bees, both in cages and in colonies, were reduced for pollens that had been adulterated with deterrents and increased for pollens that had been supplemented with linoleic acid. In the Y-maze, individuals consistently avoided the odours that they had previously experienced paired with the deterrent-adulterated pollen. Results show that nurse-aged bees associate pollen-based or pollen-related cues with either a distasteful/malaise experience or a tasty/nutritious event, leading to memories that bias their pollen-mediated response.

Pollen reinforces learning in honey bee pollen foragers but not in nectar foragers.

Searching for reward motivates and drives behaviour. In honey bees Apis mellifera, specialized pollen foragers are attracted to and learn odours with pollen. However, the role of pollen as a reward remains poorly understood. Unlike nectar, pollen is not ingested during collection. We hypothesized that pollen (but not nectar) foragers could learn pollen by sole antennal or tarsal stimulation. Then, we tested how pairing of pollen (either hand- or bee-collected) and a neutral odour during a pre-conditioning affects performance of both pollen and nectar foragers during the classical conditioning of the proboscis extension response. Secondly, we tested whether nectar and pollen foragers perceive the simultaneous presentation of pollen (on the tarsi) and sugar (on the antennae) as a better reinforcement than sucrose alone. Finally, we searched for differences in learning of the pollen and nectar foragers when they were prevented from ingesting the reward during the conditioning. Differences in pollen-reinforced learning correlate with division of labour between pollen and nectar foragers. Results show that pollen foragers performed better than nectar foragers during the conditioning phase after being pre-conditioned with pollen. Pollen foragers also performed better than nectar foragers in both the acquisition and extinction phases of the conditioning, when reinforced with the dual reward. Consistently, pollen foragers showed improved abilities to learn cues reinforced without sugar ingestion. We discussed that differences in how pollen and nectar foragers respond to a cue associated with pollen greatly contribute to the physiological mechanism that underlies foraging specialization in the honeybee.