Literature DB >> 31439964

How cognitive biases select for imperfect mimicry: a study of asymmetry in learning with bumblebees.

David W Kikuchi1, Anna Dornhaus1.   

Abstract

Imperfect mimicry presents a paradox of incomplete adaptation - intuitively, closer resemblance should improve performance. Receiver psychology can often explain why mimetic signals do not always evolve to match those of their models. Here, we explored the influence of a pervasive and powerful cognitive bias where associative learning depends upon an asymmetric interaction between the cue (stimulus) and consequence (reinforcer), such as in rats, which will associate light and tone with shock, and taste with nausea, but not the converse. Can such biases alter selection for mimicry? We designed an artificial mimicry system where bees foraged on artificial flowers, so that colours could be switched between rewarding or aversive. We found that when the colour blue was paired with a sucrose reward, other cues were ignored, but not when blue was paired with aversive compounds. We also tested the hypothesis that costs of errors affect how receivers sample imperfect mimics. However, costs of errors did not affect bee visits to imperfect mimics in our study. We propose a novel hypothesis for imperfect mimicry, in which the pairing between specific cues and reinforcers allows an imperfect mimic to resemble multiple models simultaneously. Generally, our results emphasize the importance of receiver psychology for the evolution of signal complexity and specificity.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bombus impatiens; floral mimicry; multicomponent signal; overshadowing; prepared learning

Year:  2018        PMID: 31439964      PMCID: PMC6706088          DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.08.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Behav        ISSN: 0003-3472            Impact factor:   2.844


  35 in total

1.  Can receiver psychology explain the evolution of aposematism?

Authors:  Michael P. Speed
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.844

2.  Psychophysics: bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy.

Authors:  Lars Chittka; Adrian G Dyer; Fiola Bock; Anna Dornhaus
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-07-24       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Batesian mimicry and signal detection theory.

Authors:  A Oaten; C E Pearce; M E Smyth
Journal:  Bull Math Biol       Date:  1975-08       Impact factor: 1.758

4.  Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals.

Authors:  John A Endler; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2004-04-19       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  Fine colour discrimination requires differential conditioning in bumblebees.

Authors:  Adrian G Dyer; Lars Chittka
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2004-02-27

6.  A mechanism for diversity in warning signals: conspicuousness versus toxicity in poison frogs.

Authors:  Catherine R Darst; Molly E Cummings; David C Cannatella
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-03-30       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  An empirical test of signal detection theory as it applies to Batesian mimicry.

Authors:  Liam McGuire; Hans Van Gossum; Kirsten Beirinckx; Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2006-07-27       Impact factor: 1.777

8.  Coral snake mimicry: does it occur?

Authors:  H W Greene; R W McDiarmid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1981-09-11       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Conditioning procedure and color discrimination in the honeybee Apis mellifera.

Authors:  Martin Giurfa
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2004-04-23

10.  The adaptive significance of sensory bias in a foraging context: floral colour preferences in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris.

Authors:  Nigel E Raine; Lars Chittka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2007-06-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Field evidence for colour mimicry overshadowing morphological mimicry.

Authors:  Alberto Corral-Lopez; Javier Edo Varg; Yiselle P Cano-Cobos; Rafael Losada; Emilio Realpe; David Outomuro
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2020-12-20       Impact factor: 5.091

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.