| Literature DB >> 26961062 |
Lise R Charbonneau1, Neil Kirk Hillier1, Richard E L Rogers2, Geoffrey R Williams1,3, Dave Shutler1.
Abstract
Western honey bees (Apis mellifera) face an increasing number of challenges that in recent years have led to significant economic effects on apiculture, with attendant consequences for agriculture. Nosemosis is a fungal infection of honey bees caused by either Nosema apis or N. ceranae. The putative greater virulence of N. ceranae has spurred interest in understanding how it differs from N. apis. Little is known of effects of N. apis or N. ceranae on honey bee learning and memory. Following a Pavlovian model that relies on the proboscis extension reflex, we compared acquisition learning and long-term memory recall of uninfected (control) honey bees versus those inoculated with N. apis, N. ceranae, or both. We also tested whether spore intensity was associated with variation in learning and memory. Neither learning nor memory differed among treatments. There was no evidence of a relationship between spore intensity and learning, and only limited evidence of a negative effect on memory; this occurred only in the co-inoculation treatment. Our results suggest that if Nosema spp. are contributing to unusually high colony losses in recent years, the mechanism by which they may affect honey bees is probably not related to effects on learning or memory, at least as assessed by the proboscis extension reflex.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26961062 PMCID: PMC4785390 DOI: 10.1038/srep22626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Log-transformed spore intensities in each Nosema treatment at 7 (left) and 14 (right) d post-inoculation.
Sample sizes are given in Table 1. Treatments sharing letters were not statistically different (Mann-Whitney U tests). Boxplots show interquartile range (box), median (horizontal line within box), data range (vertical line above and below box), and outliers (asterisks).
Learning and memory (mean number of positive PERs in 8 trials for all bees within a treatment) did not differ among treatments 7 or 14 d post-inoculateion.
| Variable | Days post-inoculation | Treatment | Kruskal-Wallis | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learning | 7 | 89 | 2.7 | 85 | 2.2 | 80 | 2.2 | 83 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 0.40 |
| Learning | 14 | 68 | 3.4 | 64 | 2.7 | 38 | 2.6 | 46 | 3.2 | 4.7 | 0.20 |
| Memory | 7 | 82 | 0.6 | 62 | 0.5 | 65 | 0.6 | 69 | 0.8 | 2.9 | 0.41 |
| Memory | 14 | 58 | 0.6 | 48 | 0.5 | 28 | 0.3 | 37 | 0.4 | 5.1 | 0.17 |
N is total number of bees tested in each treatment (for 8 conditioning and 8 extinction trials).
Figure 2Proportion of honey bees responding to odour presented with a sucrose reward for (conditioning trials 1–8) and to odour presented without a reward (extinction trials 9–16) relative to treatment.
Sample sizes are given in Table 1.
Within treatment Spearman correlations between spore intensities and learning and memory.
| Variable | Days post-inoculation | Co-inoculation | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | rs | p | N | rs | p | N | rs | p | ||
| Learning | 7 | 85 | −0.08 | 0.47 | 80 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 83 | 0.09 | 0.43 |
| Memory | 7 | 82 | 0.02 | 0.86 | 65 | 0.39 | 0.59 | 69 | <0.01 | 0.99 |
| Learning | 14 | 64 | 38 | 0.14 | 0.39 | 46 | 0.09 | 0.57 | ||
| Memory | 14 | 48 | 0.10 | 0.90 | 28 | 0.11 | 0.56 | 37 | ||
Significant results in bold.