Interactions of visual odometry and landmark guidance during food search in honeybees
1 Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology and NeuroImaging Centre, School
of Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences, University Medical Centre
Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
2 Centre for Visual Science, Research School of Biological Sciences,
Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: t.vladusich{at}med.umcg.nl)
Accepted 12 September 2005
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: navigation, honeybee, odometry, landmark, Apis mellifera
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Until recently, it was believed that honeybees use the amount of energy
expended on a given flight as an index of distance travelled
(von Frisch, 1993).
Accumulating evidence now suggests that honeybees use visual information to
measure how far they have flown in a particular direction
(Cheng et al., 1999
;
Chittka and Tautz, 2003
;
Esch and Burns, 1996
;
Esch et al., 2001
;
Si et al., 2003
; Srinivasan et
al., 1996
,
1997
,
1998
,
1999
,
2000
;
Tautz et al., 2004
). In
particular, distance appears to be measured in terms of the amount of optic
flow, or visual motion, that occurs on the eye during a given flight (i.e.
integrated optic flow). For example, honeybees trained to forage in an
environment rich in optic flow, such as a narrow tunnel lined with a textured
pattern, dramatically overestimate the actual distance flown, as indicated by
their dance behaviour (Esch et al.,
2001
; Si et al.,
2003
; Srinivasan et al.,
2000
). However, no comparable overestimation occurs when bees fly
through an environment impoverished in optic flow, namely, a tunnel lined with
stripes oriented along the direction of travel
(Si et al., 2003
;
Srinivasan et al., 2000
).
Srinivasan et al. (1996
,
1997
,
1998
) showed that honeybees
can use visual odometry to guide food search, independently of cues such as
visual landmarks, scent, time of flight and energy expenditure. Perhaps the
most compelling evidence that bees use integrated optic flow to guide search
comes from a control experiment, in which bees were trained and tested in
tunnels lined with axially oriented stripes, such as those used in the dance
experiments of Srinivasan et al.
(2000
). In this situation,
bees simply flew from one end of the tunnel to the other during their search,
indicating that they could not locate the training position with any accuracy
in the absence of optic flow.
Once a honeybee enters the general vicinity of a previously visited site,
she may navigate by means of visual landmarks
(Collett and Zeil, 1998;
Collett, 1996
). Much evidence
supports the view that honeybees are able to locate very precisely the
location of a food site by visually matching the constellation of landmarks
around the goal with a stored image of the site as viewed from the food source
(Cartwright and Collett, 1983
;
Cheng et al., 1987
;
Collett and Baron, 1994
;
Collett and Kelber, 1988
;
Collett and Rees, 1997
; see
Judd and Collett, 1998
, in
relation to ants). Visual landmarks may also play a role in guiding navigation
along the path to the food source (e.g. Chittka et al.,
1995a
,b
;
Collett, 1996
;
Collett and Rees, 1997
;
Collett et al., 1993
,
2002
;
Srinivasan et al., 1997
;
Zhang et al., 1996
). For
example, landmarks may serve as long-distance beacons that guide bees to the
approximate location of a goal (e.g. Chittka et al.,
1995a
,b
;
Collett and Rees, 1997
).
Another role for landmarks is to elicit a particular sensory-motor behaviour
which, when executed alone (Menzel et al.,
1998
; Wehner et al.,
1990
), or when nested within a sequence of such behaviours
(Collett et al., 1993
,
2002
;
Collett and Collett, 2002
;
Srinivasan et al., 1997
;
Zhang et al., 1996
), brings
the bee closer to the goal. In the later instance, local landmark cues may
also function to ameliorate the accumulation of odometric error by resetting
the odometer (Srinivasan et al.,
1997
). Notably, once a set of landmark cues has been learned, bees
are able to perform the correct sequence of sensory-motor actions, even in the
absence of these cues, albeit with decreased accuracy
(Collett et al., 1993
;
Zhang et al., 1996
).
In the present study, bees were trained to forage in textured tunnels, such
as those used by Srinivasan et al.
(1996,
1997
,
1998
), with a visual landmark
directly above the reward site. By changing the position of the landmark in
the test conditions, and the availability of odometric cues during training
and test, an attempt was made to tease apart the relative contributions of
odometry and landmark cues to navigation and search behaviour. We devised
various experiments to address the following questions. Experiment 1: Does the
presence of a learned landmark increase the accuracy of search behaviour,
relative to the situation in which odometry alone guides search? Do odometry
or landmark cues predominate when the two sets of cues are made to conflict,
for example, by shifting the position of the landmark at test? Experiment 2:
What is the effect of depriving the bees of visual odometry while allowing the
use of landmark cues? Experiment 3: Is it necessary that the landmark be
present during training (i.e. learned), or do bees use any landmark cues near
the goal to guide search? Experiments 4 and 5: Does the tunnel distance to
which bees are trained significantly affect the relative significance of
odometry and landmark cues?
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The landmark was a piece of rigid white cardboard placed on the top of the
tunnel, spanning one lateral wall to the other, and encompassing the whole of
the 0.2 m unit on which it was placed. Since the landmark spanned the entire
unit, bees could make several -turns within this segment before finally
crossing over into an adjacent segment. In this sense then, the recording
criterion underestimated the number of
-turns made by bees anywhere in
the tunnel, but especially at the landmark site. The landmark being large and
dorsal, however, had the advantage of obscuring the bees' views of any
external landmarks (e.g. branches of distant trees).
Training
Italian honeybees Apis mellifera L. from a single colony were
trained to forage at a feeder located at a specified position within a tunnel
for a full day (8 h training) before testing began. Bees flew from the hive to
the tunnel, located around 50 m away. The feeder was a small plastic container
(100 ml capacity), with a flat circular-shaped base through which bees could
extract small amounts of sucrose solution. The sucrose concentration was 1 mol
l-1 at the start of training but was modulated slightly throughout
the experiment to keep an approximately constant number of bees coming to the
experiment. The tunnel was lined with paper printed with random black and
white 1 cm2 texture elements. In each experiment, approximately 20
bees were marked individually with coloured paint and trained to locate the
food reward in the training tunnel. We ensured that nearby landmarks were not
visible from the bees' vantage point in the tunnel.
Food search
Bees were tested in the training tunnel in Experiments 2, 4 and 5. In
Experiments 1 and 3, bees were tested in a tunnel in which the feeder was
periodically placed at a random location. To accomplish this, the training
protocol was interrupted hourly for a period of 5-10 min, during which the
training bees foraged in the testing tunnel. At test, individual bees flew
through the tunnel towards the position previously occupied by the feeder. At
some point during a given flight, the bee began to search for the missing
feeder, performing a series of -turns, each time reversing its direction
of travel in the tunnel (Fig.
1). Search flights were quantified by observing the first four
-turns conducted by each bee upon entering the tunnel. A
-turn was
defined as a crossing-over between adjacent units in the tunnel (e.g. from 9
to 8), and was recorded manually on paper by the experimenter.
|
Experiment 1
Bees were trained to forage at a feeder placed in a tunnel lined with a
randomly textured pattern, such as that used by Srinivasan et al.
(1997). A conspicuous visual
landmark was placed directly above the location of the feeder. In the test
situation, the feeder was removed and bees' search patterns were assessed (a)
when the landmark was removed altogether, (b) with the landmark in place at
the training position, or (c) with the landmark displaced relative to the
training location, thereby setting up a situation in which odometry and
landmark cues were in positional conflict.
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1 except that the training tunnel
was lined with parallel stripes oriented along the main axis of the tunnel.
Since such axial stripes do not produce a significant image motion on the eye,
bees cannot gauge distance travelled (Si
et al., 2003; Srinivasan et al.,
1997
,
2000
). In the present
instance, this would apply equally to measurements made either relative to the
tunnel entrance or relative to the goal-defining landmark. Experiment 2
thereby assessed what kind of search strategies bees adopt when only landmark
cues are available to locate the feeder.
Experiment 3
Bees were trained in a tunnel lined with random texture, but without a
landmark at the feeder location. In the test conditions, a landmark was placed
at one of several locations in the tunnel to examine how the addition of novel
landmark cues affects search behaviour. An additional control condition
assessed how bees searched when tested without the novel landmark.
Experiments 4 and 5
Bees were trained to a longer distance than in Experiment 1 in order to
examine whether search behaviour would differ from that observed at shorter
distances.
Data analyses
The order in which conditions were tested was randomised within blocks,
each block testing all conditions; once tested, a condition was excluded until
all had been tested. Each block was tested at least twice. For each condition,
search distributions were calculated on the basis of the first two
-turns. These
-turns typically provided sufficient information to
analyse search behaviour (e.g. Cheng et
al., 1999
). In cases where the third and fourth turns illustrated
important aspects of the bees' navigation strategies, these data were also
analysed. The search distribution of a group of bees was calculated for each
test condition, as follows. For each flight, all tunnel units between the
positions of first and second
-turns were assigned values of one. Each of
these values was then divided, or weighted, by the total path length between
the first and second
-turns (inclusive). These weighted scores were then
summed, for each tunnel unit, across all the flights in an experimental
condition, and divided by the total number of flights. Thus, the total area
under the curve representing the search distribution was normalized to one.
Due to the normalization with respect to path length (i.e. distance from first
to second
-turns), each flight segment contributed the same area to the
curve. That is, shorter path lengths (associated with the more accurate
searches) contributed the same bulk to the search distribution as longer path
lengths. However, shorter (more accurate) path lengths contributed more to the
height of the search distribution, because the value associated with each
tunnel unit was higher.
All figures also show the positions of first and second -turns
normalized to the total number of flights, giving the relative frequency of
-turns across all units. When analysing only the first two
-turns
the flight path-segment between first and second
-turns for each
individual flight were displayed graphically, which supplemented the histogram
representations of
-turns (which do not give information about individual
flight paths). Indeed, displaying individual flight paths makes it immediately
possible to visualise the link between
-turn position and the search
distribution.
Statistics
Statistical analyses (analysis of variance, ANOVA) were conducted for each
experiment on the first and second -turn data, and in appropriate cases,
on the third and fourth
-turn data. These analyses indicated whether the
position of the landmark at test had an overall effect on the means of
-turns 1 and 2 across conditions. The results of these en bloc
statistical analyses are stated only briefly in the text; details can be found
in the Appendix. In special instances, where a comparison between similar
conditions in different experiments was of particular importance, individual
statistical tests were undertaken as stated in the text. Analyses were
performed using Matlab software, Version 6.1 (MathWorks, Inc.) and Genstat for
Windows, Release 6.1 (USN International, Ltd).
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
The data show clearly that the presence and position of the landmark had a dramatic effect on where bees searched. An ANOVA revealed a significant effect of landmark position on the mean (F3,166=59.78, P<0.001) of search. In the absence of the landmark (Fig. 2A), bees searched very broadly for the food, whereas search was very accurate with the landmark in place at the training location (Fig. 2B). When the landmark was shifted towards the tunnel end (Fig. 2C) or entrance (Fig. 2D), bees generally searched near the position of the landmark, rather than at the training distance, meaning that landmark cues tended to override odometry. The overall difference between conditions, in terms of both mean search position and spread of search, was highly significant. The individual conditions are examined further below.
No landmark
The search distribution in this condition shows a very broad peak in the
general vicinity of the training location
(Fig. 2A). Indeed, the search
distribution appears much broader than those previously obtained with bees
trained to the same tunnel location (e.g.
Srinivasan et al., 1997). As
indicated by the pattern of first
-turns, the errors were typically in
the direction of overshooting rather than undershooting the training location.
It is therefore possible that these bees were seeking the missing landmark.
Interestingly, the pattern of individual flight path segments shows that, in
many instances, bees did not pass over the training location on the transition
from first to second
-turns.
Landmark at unit 9
With the landmark present at the training position, bees searched almost
exclusively at this location (Fig.
2B). Essentially, bees never performed -turns away from the
immediate vicinity of the landmark. This result therefore confirms the
hypothesis that landmark cues can significantly improve search accuracy,
relative to the case where only odometric cues are available (see above).
Landmark at unit 14
A more complex pattern of results emerged when the landmark was positioned
at unit 14 (Fig. 2C). On most
flights, bees searched at the position of the landmark, but there was a small
group of flights in which bees searched in the vicinity of the training
position. This division of behavioural outcomes most likely arose because, in
many cases, bees overshot the training location and subsequently sighted the
landmark. Once acquired, bees did not often disengage visually with the
landmark, as shown by the pattern of second -turns. By comparing the
pattern of first
-turns in the current condition with that obtained in
the `No landmark' condition, it is possible to deduce the distance at which
bees first detected the landmark. This comparison therefore quantifies the
extent to which the landmark acted as a beacon (e.g.
Chittka et al., 1995a
;
Collett and Rees, 1997
).
|
Landmark at unit 4
When the landmark was shifted to unit 4, bees searched almost exclusively
at this location (Fig. 2D). On
a few flights (8/43), bees went past the landmark on first -turns but
there is insufficient data to conclude whether these bees were searching in
accord with odometry or were simply lost. What is clear is that on most
flights bees preferred to search in accord with the landmark cue. The pattern
of results is therefore very similar to the `Landmark at unit 9'
condition.
Experiment 2
The rationale of the following experiment was to eliminate the search
component driven by odometry, thereby isolating the mechanism that depends
only on landmark cues. To this end, bees were trained at unit 9 in a tunnel
lined with black and white stripes oriented along the tunnel axis (axially
striped tunnel). The experimental protocol was the same as in Experiment 1,
except that bees were tested in the training tunnel.
We found that the position of the landmark cue again had a strong effect on
search behaviour in terms of the mean (F3,152=55.16,
P<0.001) search position. In the absence of landmark cues, the
search distribution appears approximately flat
(Fig. 4A), and as the pattern
of first and second -turns shows, this distribution was due to the
tendency for bees to fly from one end of the tunnel to the other during
search. There was a slight tendency for bees to make
-turns near the
training location, possibly indicating the effect of scent cues. In general,
however, these findings agree with previous results insofar as odometry
appears to play little role in bees' search behaviour in axially striped
tunnels (Srinivasan et al.,
1997
).
|
Do odometric cues affect landmark fidelity during search?
A comparison was conducted between Experiments 1 and 2 to assess whether
odometric cues can influence bees' fidelity for a landmark cue; that is, the
tendency for bees to remain faithful to the landmark cue throughout the four
-turns (Fig. 5). For each
experiment, the three conditions in which the landmark was present were
included in the analysis. Flights in each experimental condition were then
classified according to whether a bee performed its first
-turn within
one unit either side of the landmark. The number of flights fitting these
criteria were then divided by the total number of flights, giving a ratio that
measures how strongly bees were attracted to the landmark. Flights showing the
strongest attraction were selected for further analysis, while the others were
excluded from the analysis.
|
Of the remaining flights, the same criteria were applied to the second,
third and fourth -turns, with one additional caveat: only those flights
in which bees had the opportunity to turn within one unit either side of the
landmark were included. For instance, if the landmark was at unit 9, a bee
making its first
-turn at unit 8 could not subsequently perform its
second
-turn within the set criterion (i.e. one unit either side of unit
9), since a
-turn was defined as a crossing from one unit to an adjacent
unit (see Materials and methods). Such flights were therefore also excluded
from further analysis. Taken as a whole, the analysis provides an indication
of bees' affinity to the landmark over the four
-turns for each condition
across the two experiments.
To compare these results quantitatively, the data were pooled across all
four -turns and all three conditions within each experiment. The
proportions of bees performing
-turns within the set criteria were then
calculated for each experiment and compared statistically. The analysis
revealed a highly significant overall difference between Experiments 1 and 2
(two-tailed Fisher exact test, P<0.001), meaning that the
availability of odometry has a powerful effect on landmark fidelity.
Interestingly, an overall difference (i.e. for all
-turns) was also found
between the `Landmark at unit 9' condition, and the remaining two cue-conflict
conditions, within Experiment 1 itself (two-tailed Fisher exact test,
P<0.05), meaning the conflict between landmark position and
odometry decreased bees' overall affinity for the landmark. These fascinating
results are considered in further detail in the Discussion.
Experiment 3
The results of the first experiment suggest that bees use landmark cues at
the feeder to narrow the area of search. However, it is not clear whether the
landmark must be learned during training, or whether bees are intrinsically
drawn towards any landmark in the vicinity of the training location. Indeed,
it is well-known anecdotally that bees are attracted to novel objects in their
environment. How do bees handle a situation in which a novel landmark cue is
added to the training site at test? To examine this issue, bees were trained
to unit 9 in a randomly textured tunnel containing no landmark, and tested
with an unfamiliar landmark in the tunnel. The test protocol was identical to
that used in Experiment 1 (i.e. bees tested in a tunnel in which the feeder
was randomly positioned for short time periods to distribute scent
equally).
Fig. 6 shows that the
experimental manipulation was again effective (mean:
F3,173=9.67, P<0.001). Of particular interest
here is the condition in which bees were trained and tested without a landmark
(i.e. `No landmark' condition; Fig.
6A). This condition is comparable to the `No landmark' condition
of Experiment 1, wherein bees were trained with a landmark but tested without.
The question of interest is whether search performance was different in these
two conditions. A statistical comparison of first -turns shows no overall
difference between conditions (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, P»0.1).
Thus, there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that bees overshoot
the feeder position when trained with a landmark and tested without
(Experiment 1), any more than they would when trained and tested without a
landmark.
|
Comparison with Experiment 1
To quantify the apparently different effects of familiar and novel
landmarks, a conjoint analysis was performed on Experiments 1 and 3. Only
first -turns were used for this analysis because they provide information
about the bees' initial reaction to the landmark cue. For each condition in
both experiments, the number of
-turns made in the tunnel unit occupied
by the landmark (e.g. unit 9) and the unit just beyond the landmark (e.g. unit
10) was calculated. A second measure counted the number of first
-turns
performed in the two tunnel units preceding the landmark (i.e. units 7 and 8).
The ratio of these two numbers (i.e. turns 7,8/turns 9,10) provides a measure
of the tendency for the novel landmark to repel bees rather than attract them.
That is, we interpret
-turns performed at units 8 and 9 as resulting from
an attraction effect, while
-turns performed at units 7 and 8 are
interpreted as being due to a repulsive effect. By comparing these data across
experiments, it may be possible to deduce the relative behavioural
significance that bees assign to novel and familiar landmarks positioned at
the goal.
The data are plotted in Fig. 7. Black and grey bars show the ratios of bees repelled by the landmark to those attracted by it for each condition in Experiments 1 and 3, respectively. The figure shows clearly that, regardless of the landmark's tunnel location, bees were far more likely to turn just before reaching the novel landmark than was the case with the familiar landmark. The red line in the figure indicates the ratios of bees in Experiment 3 that turned in the two units preceding the landmark relative to all units beyond the landmark (i.e. not including the landmark unit). This ratio therefore measures the absolute tendency for bees to be repelled by the novel landmark in each condition of Experiment 3.
|
In summary, the behaviour adopted by bees encountering a novel landmark at the training position is very different from that observed with a familiar landmark. The novel landmark tends to truncate the search, perhaps because the presence of an unexpected landmark cue indicates to the bees that they have overshot the training site and so are in the wrong place (see also Discussion).
Experiment 4
Do the results of Experiment 1 generalize to longer training distances? In
an attempt to answer this question, bees were trained at unit 21 with a
landmark placed above the feeder. The tunnel was 7.8 m long and lined with a
randomly textured pattern. Bees were tested in the training tunnel under one
of four conditions: `No landmark', `Landmark at unit 21', `Landmark at unit
30' and `Landmark at unit 12'.
Fig. 8 shows that, as in the
previous experiments, landmark position strongly affected search behaviour
(mean: F3,152=79.87, P<0.001). When bees were
tested in the `No landmark' condition (Fig.
8A) there was a tendency for them to search both at the training
location and at a location towards the tunnel end. That is, bees often
overshot the training location considerably. Of the 46 flights in this
condition, bees made their first -turn at or beyond unit 28 (an arbitrary
cut-off) on 21 occasions. On 16 of the 46 flights, the average of the first
two
-turns equalled or exceeded 27.
|
In the `Landmark at unit 21' condition
(Fig. 8B), the pattern of
search appears very similar to that obtained in Experiment 1 with the landmark
in place at the training location. The distribution is quite narrow and peaks
at the training unit, although there is perhaps slightly more scatter in the
positions of second -turns than in Experiment 1. This increased scatter
is to be expected given that the training distance, and hence odometric error,
was substantially greater in the present experiment. The results of the
`Landmark at unit 30' condition (Fig.
8C) are also quite similar to the analogous condition of
Experiment 1. Indeed, the search distribution appears bimodal, as was the case
in Experiment 1. One peak occurs in the vicinity of the training location,
while the other peak occurs at the position of the landmark. Unfortunately,
the number of flights in this condition was quite low (N=13) due to
inclement weather, which ended the experiment early.
In the `Landmark at unit 12' condition
(Fig. 8D), bees searched
predominantly at the location of the landmark. On only two flights did bees
make first -turns beyond the landmark. In this sense, the results of the
present condition seem to mirror those obtained in the `Landmark at unit 4'
condition of Experiment 1. While the results of the present experiment were
generally comparable with those of Experiment 1, there was one major
difference, manifested in the `No landmark' condition, where bees exhibited a
proclivity to search near the end of the tunnel. However, third and fourth
-turn data (not shown above) indicate that bees in the `Landmark at unit
21' and `Landmark at unit 12' conditions also searched at the end of the
tunnel after breaking visual contact with the landmark.
Fig. 9 plots these data for
the third and fourth -turns in the same form used throughout this study
for first and second
-turns. It is clear from the figure that, in both
the `Landmark at unit 12' (Fig.
9A) and `Landmark at unit 21' conditions
(Fig. 9B), bees were drawn away
from the landmark, and towards the tunnel end, on third
-turns. Bees were
also drawn towards the tunnel entrance (fourth
-turns) in the `Landmark
at unit 21' condition. The reason(s) for this seemingly anomalous behaviour
remain unclear (see Discussion). The behaviour did, however, suggest the need
to replicate the present experiment.
|
The results were in line with the previous experiments in showing an
overall effect for the mean (F2,97=8.61,
P<0.001) search position. Bees in the `Train with and test without
landmark' condition (Fig. 10A)
clearly overshot the training location on first -turns. Indeed, on no
occasion did a bee turn at or before unit 21 (see also below). Interestingly,
the pattern of second
-turns shows that bees almost always came back to
the training site on second
-turns, unlike the analogous condition of
Experiment 4 where bees often continued to search near the tunnel end. The
results of the `Test with landmark' condition
(Fig. 10B), however, are in
agreement with the first two
-turns of bees in Experiment 4, insofar as
bees searched accurately at the landmark, albeit with perhaps a slightly
greater tendency to overshoot the landmark position on first
-turns. Nor
was any evidence found that bees behaved radically differently on third and
fourth
-turns (data not shown).
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Landmark fidelity and odometric context
Several novel findings also emerged during the course of the study. For
example, it was found that bees were more likely to continue searching near a
familiar landmark, even after initially failing to find food, when odometry
was available (Experiment 1) than when it was absent (Experiment 2). Why were
bees more likely to break visual contact with the landmark when odometric cues
were unavailable? One reason may be that landmark infidelity prevents bees
from searching in the vicinity of a landmark for too long in the absence of an
odometric cue that confirms to the bees that they are in the correct place. In
natural environments, landmark cues at different locations may appear very
similar, and so could easily be confused. One role of odometry then, might be
to distinguish similar-looking landmark cues by acting as a context-setting
cue (e.g. Collett et al.,
1997,
2002
), providing bees with
information about the expected location of a landmark.
In the absence of such contextual information, the estimated probability
that a bee is in the wrong place might increase rapidly following the initial
failure to find food, since the landmark has lost much of its power to predict
the presence of food. Thus, a reasonable strategy would be to break visual
contact with the landmark in order to search for similar landmarks nearby.
This would be a particularly useful property in environments where odometric
cues are very sparse, as when bees fly over still water, since it would
prevent bees from persevering with a cue that is itself ambiguous (for the
properties of odometry in differently textured tunnel environments, see
Si et al., 2003). This
property may also suggest a need to revise extant models of landmark guidance
(e.g. Cartwright and Collett,
1983
), which do not necessarily capture the flexible interaction
between odometric and landmark cues.
Interestingly, the conflict between odometric and landmark cues, caused by
shifting the landmark in Experiment 1, affected bees differently from the
complete absence of odometry (Experiment 2). In the cue-conflict conditions of
Experiment 1, a small but constant proportion of bees tended to break away
from the immediate vicinity of the landmark, over all four -turns,
relative to the cue-congruent condition. Why should the number of bees
breaking away stay constant? Why should bees not rapidly switch back to
searching in accord with the available odometric information?
Here it may again prove useful to consider that bees can only estimate the
probability that a landmark is in the correct place (i.e. that it is the
correct landmark), since odometric error prevents bees from knowing exactly
where they are at any given time. After the initial failure to find food, this
probability does not change as rapidly as it would in the complete absence of
odometric cues, because odometry provides a contextual cue that is roughly
consistent with the bees being in the correct place. The information available
to the bees therefore favours persevering with the landmark cue. Importantly,
the difference between the cue-congruent and cue-conflict conditions suggests
that the landmark cue did not reset the odometer (e.g.
Chittka et al., 1995b), such
that bees behaved as if they were actually at the training site. That is, why
should bees break away from the landmark on second, third and fourth
-turns, when their odometric value has been adjusted to that associated
with the training site? Indeed, the break-away property suggests just the
opposite; that bees do not reset the odometer value, at least relative to the
tunnel entrance. Collett et al.
(2003
) reached a similar
conclusion for global path integration in ants.
Landmark repulsion and undershooting
Another significant new finding was that novel landmark cues did not have
the same effect on bees as familiar landmark cues (Experiment 3). Rather than
having an attractive effect, the novel landmark appeared to repel bees
instead, causing them to initiate search closer to the tunnel entrance, than
in the case of the familiar landmark. This finding defines another sense in
which a landmark cue can take behavioural precedence over odometry, and may
reflect another useful behavioural strategy in natural foraging circumstances.
In particular, the presence of a novel landmark on a familiar route might
indicate that the bee has overshot the location of the food source (or, more
generally, that she is in the wrong place). Therefore it may make sense that
bees turn back and begin searching at a shorter distance.
In support of this hypothesis, it was also found that the absolute strength
of the repulsion effect varied with the position of the landmark in the test
tunnel. That is, the closer the landmark was to the tunnel entrance, the
greater the probability of bees making -turns beyond it. This result
makes ecological sense because bees encountering the landmark near the
entrance would (on average) have smaller odometer readings than bees
encountering the landmark at or beyond the training site. Smaller odometer
readings would provide evidence to the bees that they had not overshot the
training site, making them less likely to turn back. Conversely, bees
encountering the novel landmark beyond the training site would (on average)
have larger odometer readings, and so be very likely to turn back.
If this hypothesis were correct, then the subset of bees flying past the landmark (i.e. ignoring it) in any given condition would (on average) have smaller odometer readings than bees that turn back. These bees would then tend to overshoot the training site because they would need to fly a little further before their odometer readings matched the one stored in memory. This is exactly what was found in the `Landmark at unit 4' condition of Experiment 3. The subset of bees that flew past the landmark searched a little beyond the training distance. This effect appeared so striking during the experiment that a large number of flights were recorded in that condition in order to confirm the result. The effect is unlikely to be due to resetting of the odometer at the novel landmark: additional experiments, not presented here, showed that bees tended to overshoot the training location even further when the novel landmark was placed closer to the tunnel entrance. The resetting explanation would predict the opposite result: namely, bees would be expected to search at about 9 units beyond the landmark, at a position nearer the tunnel entrance.
Landmark expectation and overshooting
A third novel finding was that the absence of a familiar goal-defining
landmark can cause bees to overshoot the training site, compared to the case
in which bees were trained without the landmark (Experiment 5; but see below).
In this context, the absence of the expected goal-defining landmark had the
opposite effect of a novel landmark cue. The failure to find the familiar
landmark may have provided evidence to the bees that they had not yet reached
the appropriate distance (i.e. that odometry had brought them up short). Bees
did, however, return to the training site to perform second -turns. This
is an important observation because it shows that bees re-adjusted their
behaviour in response to the failure to find the landmark in the region just
beyond the training site. Thus, bees exhibited two behavioural adjustments in
rapid succession: as an initial adjustment to the absence of the expected
landmark, bees flew a little further than odometry would have permitted; then
as a second adjustment to the failure to find the landmark, bees reverted back
to the learned odometric distance. This result itself exemplifies the amazing
behavioural flexibility of the honeybee.
Interestingly, the overshoot behaviour observed in Experiment 5 did not arise in the experiments involving the shorter tunnels (Experiments 1 and 3). The failure to find a positive result may have occurred for several reasons. For instance, it is possible that bees are likely to exhibit odometric fidelity at shorter training distances, leading to a diminished effect of the familiar landmark's absence. Further experiments are required to resolve this issue.
Why was search often so broad?
Further experiments are also required to assess whether bees behave
differently in indoor and outdoor environments. In particular, the search
performance of bees in some of the present experiments (e.g. Experiments 1 and
3), all of which were conducted outdoors, was considerably less accurate than
would be suggested by the results of comparable experiments conducted indoors
(e.g. Srinivasan et al.,
1997). In general, there are many uncontrollable variables in
outdoor environments (e.g. cloud cover, temperature), which appear to
influence bees' behaviour in the tunnels. Indeed, several experiments had to
be aborted because bees apparently failed to learn, or ignored, the various
cues. One example was included herein, partly to illustrate the point that
bees can sometimes behave anomalously in the test situation (Experiment 4).
Specifically, bees often failed to search in the vicinity of the training
site, and instead searched near the end of the tunnel. This also occurred in
other experiments not included here, and was not clearly related to phototaxis
or any other obvious cue (although bees did often appear to fly quickly in the
tunnel in these experiments, perhaps preventing them from learning the cues
properly; see Chittka et al.,
2003
). Since the present work focused on the interactions between
odometric and landmark cues, the results of these experiments were not
included in the paper. Further study is clearly required to understand why
bees can behave differently in indoor and outdoor environments. One
speculative possibility is that conditions in the hive itself may influence
foraging behaviour differently in indoor and outdoor environments
(Groh et al., 2004
;
Tautz et al., 2003
).
Conclusions
In summary, the present work reveals several strategies employed by bees to
search for food. Bees assess the relative significance of odometric and
landmark cues, often quite dynamically, and assign to each cue a behavioural
weight that is appropriate to the situation. However, further experiments are
required to investigate why bees do not always appear to pay attention to (or
fail to learn) the sensory cues available at the feeder site. Additionally, it
is currently uncertain how the present results might generalise to the scale
of foraging in natural outdoor environments.
![]() |
Appendix |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Cartwright, B. A. and Collett, T. S. (1983). Landmark learning in honeybees: Experiments and models. J. Comp. Physiol. A 151,521 -543.[CrossRef]
Cheng, K., Collett, T. S., Pickhard, A. and Wehner, R. (1987). The use of visual landmarks by honeybees: Bees weight landmarks according to their distance from the goal. J. Comp. Physiol. A 161,469 -475.[CrossRef]
Cheng, K., Srinivasan, M. V. and Zhang, S. W. (1999). Error is proportional to distance measured by honeybees: Weber's law in the odometer. Anim. Cog. 2, 11-16.[CrossRef]
Chittka, L. and Tautz, J. (2003). The spectral
input to honeybee visual odometry. J. Exp. Biol.
206,2393
-2397.
Chittka, L., Kunze, J. and Geiger, K. (1995a). The influences of landmarks on distance estimation of honeybees. Anim. Behav. 50,23 -31.[CrossRef]
Chittka, L., Kunze, J., Shipman, C. and Buchmann, S. L. (1995b). The significance of landmarks for path integration of homing honey bee foragers. Naturwissenschaften 82,341 -343.[CrossRef]
Chittka, L., Dyer, A. G., Bock, F. and Dornhaus, A. (2003). Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy. Nature 424,388 .[CrossRef][Medline]
Collett, M., Collett, T. S., Chameron, S. and Wehner, R.
(2003). Do familiar landmarks reset the global path integration
system of desert ants? J. Exp. Biol.
206,877
-882.
Collett, M., Harland, D. and Collett, T. S.
(2002). The use of landmarks and panoramic context in the
performance of local vectors by navigating honeybees. J. Exp.
Biol. 205,807
-814.
Collett, T. S. (1996). Insect navigation en
route to the goal: multiple strategies for the use of landmarks.
J. Exp. Biol. 199,227
-235.
Collett, T. S. and Baron, J. (1994). Biological compasses and the coordinate frame of landmark memories in honeybees. Nature 368,137 -140.[CrossRef]
Collett, T. S. and Collett, M. (2002). Memory use in insect visual navigation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 542-552.[CrossRef][Medline]
Collett, T. S. and Kelber, A. (1988). The retrieval of visuo-spatial memories by honeybees. J. Comp. Physiol. A 163,145 -150.[CrossRef][Medline]
Collett, T. S. and Rees, J. A. (1997). View-based navigation in Hymenoptera: Multiple strategies of landmark guidance in the approach to a feeder. J. Comp. Physiol. A 181, 47-58.[CrossRef]
Collett, T. S. and Zeil, J. (1998). Places and landmarks: an arthropod perspective. In Spatial Representation in Animals (ed. S. Healy), pp. 18-59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collett, T. S., Fry, S. N. and Wehner, R. (1993). Sequence learning by honeybees. J. Comp. Physiol. A 172,693 -706.
Collett, T. S., Baron, J. and Sellen, K. (1996). On the encoding of movement vectors by honeybees: Are distance and direction represented independently? J. Comp. Physiol. A 179,395 -406.
Collett, T. S., Fauria, K., Dale, K. and Baron, J. (1997). Places and patterns: a study of context learning in honeybees. J. Comp. Physiol. A 181,343 -353.[CrossRef]
Esch, H. E. and Burns, J. E. (1996). Distance
estimation by foraging honeybees. J. Exp. Biol.
199,155
-162.
Esch, H. E., Zhang, S., Srinivasan, M. V. and Tautz, J. (2001). Honeybee dances communicate distances measured by optic flow. Nature 411,581 -583.[CrossRef][Medline]
Groh, C., Tautz, J. and Rössler, W.
(2004). Synaptic organization in the adult honey-bee brain is
influenced by brood-temperature control during pupal development.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
101,4268
-4273.
Judd, S. P. D. and Collett, T. S. (1998). Multiple stored views and landmark guidance in ants. Nature 392,710 -714.[CrossRef]
Menzel, R., Geiger, K., Joerges, J., Muller, U. and Chittka, L. (1998). Bees travel novel homeward routes by integrating separately acquired vector memories. Anim. Behav. 55,139 -152.[CrossRef][Medline]
Si, A., Srinivasan, M. V. and Zhang, S. (2003).
Honeybee navigation: Properties of the visually driven odometer. J.
Exp. Biol. 206,1265
-1273.
Srinivasan, M. V., Zhang, S. W., Lehrer, M. and Collett, T.
S. (1996). Honeybee navigation en route to the goal:
visual flight control and odometry. J. Exp. Biol.
199,237
-244.
Srinivasan, M. V., Zhang, S. W. and Bidwell, N. J.
(1997). Visually mediated odometry in honeybees. J.
Exp. Biol. 200,2513
-2522.
Srinivasan, M. V., Zhang, S. W. and Lehrer, M. (1998). Honeybee navigation: odometry with monocular input. Anim. Behav. 56,1245 -1259.[CrossRef][Medline]
Srinivasan, M. V., Zhang, S. W., Berry, J., Cheng, K. and Zhu, H. (1999). Honeybee navigation: Linear perception of short distances travelled. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 185,239 -245.[CrossRef]
Srinivasan, M. V., Zhang, S. W., Altwein, M. and Tautz, J.
(2000). Honeybee navigation: Nature and calibration of the
odometer. Science 287,851
-853.
Tautz, J., Maier, S., Groh, C., Roessler, W. and Brockmann,
A. (2003). Behavioral performance in adult honey bees is
influenced by the temperature experienced during their pupal development.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
100,7343
-7347.
Tautz, J., Zhang, S., Spaethe, J., Brockmann, A., Si, A. and Srinivasan, M. V. (2004). Honeybee odometry: performance in varying natural terrain. PloS Biol. 2, 915-923.[CrossRef]
von Frisch, K. (1993). The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Wehner, R., Bleuler, S., Nievergelt, C. and Shah, D. (1990). Bees navigate by using vectors and routes rather than maps. Naturwissenschaften 77,479 -482.[CrossRef]
Zhang, S. W., Bartsch, K. and Srinivasan, M. V. (1996). Maze learning by honeybees. Neurobiol. Learn. Memory 72,180 -201.[CrossRef]