Cargando…

Reappraising Social Insect Behavior through Aversive Responsiveness and Learning

BACKGROUND: The success of social insects can be in part attributed to their division of labor, which has been explained by a response threshold model. This model posits that individuals differ in their response thresholds to task-associated stimuli, so that individuals with lower thresholds special...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roussel, Edith, Carcaud, Julie, Sandoz, Jean-Christophe, Giurfa, Martin
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19142222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004197
_version_ 1782163233924186112
author Roussel, Edith
Carcaud, Julie
Sandoz, Jean-Christophe
Giurfa, Martin
author_facet Roussel, Edith
Carcaud, Julie
Sandoz, Jean-Christophe
Giurfa, Martin
author_sort Roussel, Edith
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The success of social insects can be in part attributed to their division of labor, which has been explained by a response threshold model. This model posits that individuals differ in their response thresholds to task-associated stimuli, so that individuals with lower thresholds specialize in this task. This model is at odds with findings on honeybee behavior as nectar and pollen foragers exhibit different responsiveness to sucrose, with nectar foragers having higher response thresholds to sucrose concentration. Moreover, it has been suggested that sucrose responsiveness correlates with responsiveness to most if not all other stimuli. If this is the case, explaining task specialization and the origins of division of labor on the basis of differences in response thresholds is difficult. METHODOLOGY: To compare responsiveness to stimuli presenting clear-cut differences in hedonic value and behavioral contexts, we measured appetitive and aversive responsiveness in the same bees in the laboratory. We quantified proboscis extension responses to increasing sucrose concentrations and sting extension responses to electric shocks of increasing voltage. We analyzed the relationship between aversive responsiveness and aversive olfactory conditioning of the sting extension reflex, and determined how this relationship relates to division of labor. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sucrose and shock responsiveness measured in the same bees did not correlate, thus suggesting that they correspond to independent behavioral syndromes, a foraging and a defensive one. Bees which were more responsive to shock learned and memorized better aversive associations. Finally, guards were less responsive than nectar foragers to electric shocks, exhibiting higher tolerance to low voltage shocks. Consequently, foragers, which are more sensitive, were the ones learning and memorizing better in aversive conditioning. CONCLUSIONS: Our results constitute the first integrative study on how aversive responsiveness affects learning, memory and social organization in honeybees. We suggest that parallel behavioral modules (e.g. appetitive, aversive) coexist within each individual bee and determine its tendency to adopt a given task. This conclusion, which is at odds with a simple threshold model, should open new opportunities for exploring the division of labor in social insects.
format Text
id pubmed-2614468
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26144682009-01-14 Reappraising Social Insect Behavior through Aversive Responsiveness and Learning Roussel, Edith Carcaud, Julie Sandoz, Jean-Christophe Giurfa, Martin PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The success of social insects can be in part attributed to their division of labor, which has been explained by a response threshold model. This model posits that individuals differ in their response thresholds to task-associated stimuli, so that individuals with lower thresholds specialize in this task. This model is at odds with findings on honeybee behavior as nectar and pollen foragers exhibit different responsiveness to sucrose, with nectar foragers having higher response thresholds to sucrose concentration. Moreover, it has been suggested that sucrose responsiveness correlates with responsiveness to most if not all other stimuli. If this is the case, explaining task specialization and the origins of division of labor on the basis of differences in response thresholds is difficult. METHODOLOGY: To compare responsiveness to stimuli presenting clear-cut differences in hedonic value and behavioral contexts, we measured appetitive and aversive responsiveness in the same bees in the laboratory. We quantified proboscis extension responses to increasing sucrose concentrations and sting extension responses to electric shocks of increasing voltage. We analyzed the relationship between aversive responsiveness and aversive olfactory conditioning of the sting extension reflex, and determined how this relationship relates to division of labor. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sucrose and shock responsiveness measured in the same bees did not correlate, thus suggesting that they correspond to independent behavioral syndromes, a foraging and a defensive one. Bees which were more responsive to shock learned and memorized better aversive associations. Finally, guards were less responsive than nectar foragers to electric shocks, exhibiting higher tolerance to low voltage shocks. Consequently, foragers, which are more sensitive, were the ones learning and memorizing better in aversive conditioning. CONCLUSIONS: Our results constitute the first integrative study on how aversive responsiveness affects learning, memory and social organization in honeybees. We suggest that parallel behavioral modules (e.g. appetitive, aversive) coexist within each individual bee and determine its tendency to adopt a given task. This conclusion, which is at odds with a simple threshold model, should open new opportunities for exploring the division of labor in social insects. Public Library of Science 2009-01-14 /pmc/articles/PMC2614468/ /pubmed/19142222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004197 Text en Roussel et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Roussel, Edith
Carcaud, Julie
Sandoz, Jean-Christophe
Giurfa, Martin
Reappraising Social Insect Behavior through Aversive Responsiveness and Learning
title Reappraising Social Insect Behavior through Aversive Responsiveness and Learning
title_full Reappraising Social Insect Behavior through Aversive Responsiveness and Learning
title_fullStr Reappraising Social Insect Behavior through Aversive Responsiveness and Learning
title_full_unstemmed Reappraising Social Insect Behavior through Aversive Responsiveness and Learning
title_short Reappraising Social Insect Behavior through Aversive Responsiveness and Learning
title_sort reappraising social insect behavior through aversive responsiveness and learning
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19142222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004197
work_keys_str_mv AT rousseledith reappraisingsocialinsectbehaviorthroughaversiveresponsivenessandlearning
AT carcaudjulie reappraisingsocialinsectbehaviorthroughaversiveresponsivenessandlearning
AT sandozjeanchristophe reappraisingsocialinsectbehaviorthroughaversiveresponsivenessandlearning
AT giurfamartin reappraisingsocialinsectbehaviorthroughaversiveresponsivenessandlearning