Literature DB >> 9565478

The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.).

R E Page1, J Erber, M K Fondrk.   

Abstract

Honey bee foragers were tested for their proboscis extension response (PER) to water and varying solutions of sucrose. Returning pollen and nectar foragers were collected at the entrance of a colony and were assayed in the laboratory. Pollen foragers had a significantly higher probability of responding to water and to lower concentrations of sucrose. Bees derived from artificially selected high- and low-pollen-hoarding strains were also tested using the proboscis extension assay. Returning foragers were captured and tested for PERs0 to 30% sucrose. Results demonstrated a genotypic effect on PERs of returnining foragers. The PERs of departing high- and low-strain foragers were consistent with those of returning foragers. The PERs were related to nectar and water reward perception of foragers. High strain bees were more likely to return with loads of water and lower concentrations of sucrose than foragers from low pollen strain. Low-strain bees were more likely to return empty. We identified a previously mapped genomic region that contains a variable quantitative trait locus that appears to influence sucrose response thresholds. These studies demonstrate a gene-brain-behavior pathway that can be altered as a consequence of colony-level selection for quantities of stored food.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9565478     DOI: 10.1007/s003590050196

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Physiol A            Impact factor:   1.836


  91 in total

1.  Evolution of self-organized division of labor in a response threshold model.

Authors:  Ana Duarte; Ido Pen; Laurent Keller; Franz J Weissing
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  Regulation of behaviorally associated gene networks in worker honey bee ovaries.

Authors:  Ying Wang; Sarah D Kocher; Timothy A Linksvayer; Christina M Grozinger; Robert E Page; Gro V Amdam
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 3.312

3.  Immune response inhibits associative learning in insects.

Authors:  Eamonn B Mallon; Axel Brockmann; Paul Schmid-Hempel
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Visualizing neuromodulation in vivo: TANGO-mapping of dopamine signaling reveals appetite control of sugar sensing.

Authors:  Hidehiko K Inagaki; Shlomo Ben-Tabou de-Leon; Allan M Wong; Smitha Jagadish; Hiroshi Ishimoto; Gilad Barnea; Toshihiro Kitamoto; Richard Axel; David J Anderson
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 41.582

5.  Division of labour and colony efficiency in social insects: effects of interactions between genetic architecture, colony kin structure and rate of perturbations.

Authors:  Markus Waibel; Dario Floreano; Stéphane Magnenat; Laurent Keller
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-07-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 6.  The making of a social insect: developmental architectures of social design.

Authors:  Robert E Page; Gro V Amdam
Journal:  Bioessays       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.345

7.  Sensory responsiveness and the effects of equal subjective rewards on tactile learning and memory of honeybees.

Authors:  Ricarda Scheiner; Anthea Kuritz-Kaiser; Randolf Menzel; Joachim Erber
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.460

8.  Odor discrimination in classical conditioning of proboscis extension in two stingless bee species in comparison to Africanized honeybees.

Authors:  S I Mc Cabe; K Hartfelder; W C Santana; W M Farina
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 1.836

9.  Sucrose acceptance, discrimination and proboscis responses of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the field and the laboratory.

Authors:  Samir Mujagic; Joachim Erber
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2009-01-16       Impact factor: 1.836

10.  Individual differences in learning and biogenic amine levels influence the behavioural division between foraging honeybee scouts and recruits.

Authors:  Chelsea N Cook; Thiago Mosqueiro; Colin S Brent; Cahit Ozturk; Jürgen Gadau; Noa Pinter-Wollman; Brian H Smith
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 5.091

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.