Odour Learning Bees Have Longer Foraging Careers Than Non-learners in a Natural Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual animals allowed the opportunity to learn generally outperform those prevented from learning, yet, within a species the capacity for learning varies markedly. The evolutionary processes that maintain this variation in learning ability are not yet well understood. Several studies demonstrate links between fitness traits and visual learning, but the selection pressures operating on cognitive traits are likely influenced by multiple sensory modalities. In addition to vision, most animals will use a combination of hearing, olfaction (smell), gustation (taste), and touch to gain information about their environment. Some animals demonstrate individual preference for, or enhanced learning performance using certain senses in relation to particular aspects of their behaviour (e.g., foraging), whereas conspecific individuals may show different preferences. By assessing fitness traits in relation to different sensory modalities we will strengthen our understanding of factors driving observed variation in learning ability. We assessed the relationship between the olfactory learning ability of bumble bees ( Bombus terrestris ) and their foraging performance in their natural environment. We found that bees which failed to learn this odour-reward association had shorter foraging careers; foraging for fewer days and thus provisioning their colonies with fewer resources. This was not due to a reduced propensity to forage, but may have been due to a reduced ability to return to their colony. When comparing among only individuals that did learn, we found that the rate at which floral resources were collected was similar, regardless of how they performed in the olfactory learning task. Our results demonstrate that an ability to learn olfactory cues can have a positive impact of the foraging performance of B. terrestris in a natural environment, but echo findings of earlier studies on visual learning, which suggest that enhanced learning is not necessarily beneficial for bee foragers provisioning their colony.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".