Literature DB >> 34250559

Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: a comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure.

Sarah K Richman1, Felicity Muth2, Anne S Leonard3.   

Abstract

Animals develop food preferences based on taste, nutritional quality and to avoid environmental toxins. Yet, measuring preferences in an experimental setting can be challenging since ecologically realistic assays can be time consuming, while simplified assays may not capture natural sampling behavior. Field realism is a particular challenge when studying behavioral responses to environmental toxins in lab-based assays, given that toxins can themselves impact sampling behavior, masking our ability to detect preferences. We address these challenges by comparing different experimental methods for measuring sucrose concentration preference in bumble bees (Bombus impatiens), evaluating the utility of two preference chamber-based methods (ad libitum versus a novel restricted-sampling assay) in replicating bees' preferences when they fly freely between artificial flowers in a foraging arena. We find that the restricted-sampling method matched a free-flying scenario more closely than the ad libitum protocol, and we advocate for expanded use of this approach, given its ease of implementation. We then performed a second experiment using the new protocol to ask whether consuming the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, known to suppress feeding motivation, interfered with the expression of sucrose preferences. After consuming imidacloprid, bees were less likely to choose the higher-quality sucrose even as they gained experience with both options. Thus, we provide evidence that pesticides interfere with bees' ability to discriminate between floral rewards that differ in value. This work highlights a simple protocol for assessing realistic foraging preferences in bees and provides an efficient way for researchers to measure the impacts of anthropogenic factors on preference expression.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Behavioral assays; Bombus impatiens; Imidacloprid; Nectar; Preference

Year:  2021        PMID: 34250559     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-021-04979-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  24 in total

Review 1.  Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers.

Authors:  Dave Goulson; Elizabeth Nicholls; Cristina Botías; Ellen L Rotheray
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Neonicotinoid exposure disrupts bumblebee nest behavior, social networks, and thermoregulation.

Authors:  James D Crall; Callin M Switzer; Robert L Oppenheimer; Ashlee N Ford Versypt; Biswadip Dey; Andrea Brown; Mackay Eyster; Claire Guérin; Naomi E Pierce; Stacey A Combes; Benjamin L de Bivort
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Partial preference of insects for the male flowers of an annual herb.

Authors:  G Bell; L Lefebvre; L -A Giraldeau; D Weary
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Extreme intraplant variation in nectar sugar composition in an insect-pollinated perennial herb.

Authors:  Carlos M Herrera; Ricardo Pérez; Conchita Alonso
Journal:  Am J Bot       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.844

5.  Sampling and tracking a changing environment: persistence and reward in the foraging decisions of bumblebees.

Authors:  Aimee S Dunlap; Daniel R Papaj; Anna Dornhaus
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.906

6.  Kissing bugs can generalize and discriminate between different bitter compounds.

Authors:  Yamila Asparch; Gina Pontes; Santiago Masagué; Sebastian Minoli; Romina B Barrozo
Journal:  J Physiol Paris       Date:  2016-11-16

7.  Imidacloprid-induced facilitation of the proboscis extension reflex habituation in the honeybee.

Authors:  M Lambin; C Armengaud; S Raymond; M Gauthier
Journal:  Arch Insect Biochem Physiol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.698

Review 8.  Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment.

Authors:  Tjeerd Blacquière; Guy Smagghe; Cornelis A M van Gestel; Veerle Mommaerts
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2012-02-18       Impact factor: 2.823

9.  Sucrose Sensitivity of Honey Bees Is Differently Affected by Dietary Protein and a Neonicotinoid Pesticide.

Authors:  Fabien J Démares; Kendall L Crous; Christian W W Pirk; Susan W Nicolson; Hannelie Human
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Bees prefer foods containing neonicotinoid pesticides.

Authors:  Sébastien Kessler; Erin Jo Tiedeken; Kerry L Simcock; Sophie Derveau; Jessica Mitchell; Samantha Softley; Jane C Stout; Geraldine A Wright
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 49.962

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.