Close

Bumblebees flexibly adjust learning and decision strategies to sensory information content in a foraging task

Johannes Spaethe, Selma Hutzenthaler, Alexander Dietz, Karl Gehring, James Foster, Anna Stöckl

Posted on: 28 May 2025 , updated on: 29 May 2025

Preprint posted on 17 December 2024

so many features…so little time: bumblebees show optimization of cue integration in a memory task.

Selected by T. W. Schwanitz, Cemre Coskun

Introduction

What do we actually remember when we recognize another person? What features does our brain prioritize to let it recognize and learn another face quickly? And more broadly, how do we keep track of the many different objects in our lives and know which ones are ours?

There are many challenges to understanding how brains encode multiple features for recognition and how those features might get prioritized in learning. To overcome these experimental challenges, Spaethe and colleagues decided to leverage the bumblebee as their study system. Bumblebees are reasonably docile and easy to handle in the lab, and, importantly, they can be trained to recognize colors, patterns, and shapes and then associate these with a sugar reward. This behavior comes naturally to the bees: they spend much of their adult lives flitting from flower to flower, with some being easier to tell apart than others. Moreover, some blossoms are more generous with their nectar rewards, making recognition of distinct flower types a useful skill for the bumblebee.

Experimental design

The authors designed a two-choice task where bees must choose between sugar reward stations that vary in terms of color and configural features (shapes or patterns). The core experimental manipulation is the distance in color space: some color pairs are easy for the bees to discriminate (orange/blue, yellow/blue), while others are more difficult to tell apart (teal/blue, orange/yellow; Fig. 1a). By manipulating color cue discriminability, the authors tested whether bees flexibly change the importance of cues during decision-making. Importantly, the bees were foraging when they wanted to in this assay, as individually marked forager bees went out on their own to an area with five different stations that presented the two different color-pattern or color-shape configurations. This assay was thus designed in a way that took advantage of the bumblebee’s natural behaviors and learning abilities.

Bees were “trained” by allowing them to fly out and perform a foraging trip 30 times. In a training session, a given color and pattern/shape were associated with the sugar reward. Then, the authors tested the bees with a series of 10 trips where the same color remained a good indicator of sugar reward but the pattern/shape that had hitherto been associated with the reward suddenly was not. The bees were trained again for 30 trips with the original combination or reward features. Finally, they were tested on 10 trips where the sugar stations now had only the pattern or shape but no color to mark the reward (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 of the preprint: A) Examples of the different colors/patterns/shapes used in this assay. B) The training and testing regimen employed by the authors. Note that for an individual bee, patterns (depicted in large) or shapes (depicted in small) were used. C) Graphic showing close versus distant color combinations.
Highlighted results
There are a few key takeaways from the authors’ initial behavioral experiments:
  • Bumblebees overwhelmingly give preference to color as a cue for recognizing feeder stations that supply a reward.
  • When the colors are easy to discriminate, the bumblebees evidently do not learn the pattern/shape associated with the reward. Instead, they rely on the color as their recognition feature.
  • When the colors are difficult to discriminate, e.g., two similar colors like yellow and orange, the bumblebees do also learn to associate the pattern/shape with the reward, possibly to augment their decision making.

Given these results, the authors then made a Bayesian model to help understand and formalize these behavioral results. This model, and the empirical data, suggest that bees switch their decision-making strategy based on how difficult it is to rely solely on their preferred feature. To put this into human terms, if there’s only one person with red hair in a new group of people you encounter, you might quickly be able to distinguish them based solely on that salient feature; however, if there are multiple redheads in a group, then your brain would have to take advantage of other more subtle features for distinguishing them.

Spaethe and colleagues also further analyzed their behavioral data by looking closely at each learning block, and by performing additional experiments investigating how bees handle single versus multiple attributes. There are a few key takeaways from this part of the paper:

  • As one would expect, bumblebees more quickly leanred distant color pairs. Colors that were close together, i.e., more difficult to discriminate, took longer to learn.
  • Bumblebees shift strategy consistent with cue blocking in associative learning. When one cue is highly predictive (color) and easily associated with the reward, it blocks the learning process for others (pattern/shape).
  • The authors also asked if bees learned close color combinations more quickly when they were presented with patterns/shapes. Although the effect is subtle, it does seem that having an additional cue helped them to learn faster (Fig. 4D of the preprint).

The results from these experiments (contained in Fig. 4 of the preprint) suggest that for difficult features, having several cues can improve learning outcomes. The exact mechanisms underlying this effect remain unclear, yet it is a result that makes some intuitive sense: the brain can learn more quickly when it can get more information to help sort out tricky features. Moreover, bumblebees can flexibly switch their learning strategy depending on the reliability of the cue and can make trade-offs between speed and accuracy in learning—an ability that has no doubt been selected for multiple times over the course of nervous system evolution.

What we like about this preprint

The experiments in this preprint are very thorough and do a nice job of leveraging the natural behavior of bumblebees. The bees in the experiments are performing freely, which helps to make the results more relevant and interpretable—there are no possible confounds from animals being in distress. We found the task design clever, as it uses the same bees and the same task, just with changes in perceptual space that induce a strategy shift in the bees. Finally, these results have relevance beyond bees: a paradigm like this could be used with Drosophila, offering circuit-level insights into strategy switching, though some work would likely need to be done to find a voluntary Drosophila behavior that is akin to bumblebee foraging.

Tags: bombus terrestris, bumblebees, cue integration

doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/prelights.40575

Read preprint (No Ratings Yet)

Author's response

Anna Stöckl shared

You use the color orange and yellow alternatingly in some assays. Could you elaborate on why in some assays you chose orange, and why in some you chose yellow? You mention that bees naively prefer blue over orange and teal over blue—do you know where yellow fits in on this hierarchy (if indeed it’s a hierarchy and teal is then therefore preferred to orange)?

The genesis of these colours resulted from the fact that we actually started this study as student laboratory projects. In courses at Würzburg University, B.Sc. and M.Sc. students would perform pilot experiments that eventually led to this study. We started using out blue and yellow as a colour combination, because this is a typical combination used in many learning paradigms with honeybees and bumblebees. When we obtained the first results which showed that bumblebees indeed did not learn the pattern and shape features simultaneously with this perceptually distant colour combination, we tried a close colour combination, using the yellow we already had and adding orange. After observing that bumblebees with this close colour pair would learn both pattern and shape features and rely on these for their foraging decisions in addition to the colour features, we developed the final design, adding cyan to end up with two close and two distant colour combinations, to ensure that the observations we report do not depend on the wavelength of the stimuli, but indeed on their perceptual distances in the animals’ colour space.

Since we tested individual bees only with one colour combination each, we cannot establish a general hierarchy of colour preferences from our results. The preferences are only valid within the respective pairs. Colour preferences could also have been influenced by the shapes or patterns they were associated with. And indeed, while we found a preference for yellow over blue in the bees tested with patterns, there was none when presented together with shapes. Consistent across all experiments was the preference for blue over orange, and teal over blue. Yet, this particular stimulus design was not set up to resolve colour preferences or their hierarchies, and therefore we caution against interpreting the preferences we observed as general colour preferences of bumblebees.

Would a full blocking test (e.g., train configural cue first, then add color) help verify the associative model?

It would definitely be an interesting follow-up experiment to use a time-separated blocking test, a) training colour first, and then add the configural cue, to substantiate that learning colour first blocks learning of the configural cue and training configural cues first and then add colour, to see if configural cues, when learned first, would be equally potent at blocking colour learning.

Potential differences in learning outcomes between these sequences would be extremely interested in terms of weighting of cues and the potential to form associations. So there are many more exciting experiments to be performed to better understand how multiple cues are processed and learned in bumblebees in particular, and insects in general.

Do you have any ideas on what neural circuits might support this cue weighting in bees? Mushroom body? Lateral horn? Or perhaps somewhere earlier in the visual system itself?

The short answer is: we do not know. The more speculative answer is: colour learning has been shown to be linked to the mushroom bodies in insects (see beautiful work by Kinoshita et al. in butterflies https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.032, and Paulk et al. in bumblebees https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2008.03.002 and Vogt et al. in fruit flies https://elifesciences.org/articles/02395 ). But then, Drosophila has also been shown to learn some aspects of colour without the mushroom bodies (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC311233/) – so it might also depend on the context as well where this information is processed. Where pattern and shape memories are formed, to our knowledge, is currently unknown, but the mushroom bodies are definitely the first place to look.

Moreover, the mushroom bodies are required for learning more complex sequences in bees https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-008-0241-1  and would provide the right synaptic architecture to implement blocking of new associations by previously formed ones 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112974, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508422112.

Have your say

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up to customise the site to your preferences and to receive alerts

Register here

Also in the animal behavior and cognition category:

Cortical astrocyte activation triggers meningeal nociception and migraine-like pain

Dara Bree, Jun Zhao, Jennifer Stratton, et al.

Selected by 19 May 2025

Vanessa Ehlers

Neuroscience

Topographically organized dorsal raphe activity modulates forebrain sensory-motor computations and adaptive behaviors

Aytac Kadir Mutlu, Bram Serneels, Christoph Wiest, et al.

Selected by 19 May 2025

Muhammed Sinan Malik

Neuroscience

Evolution of taste processing shifts dietary preference

Enrico Bertolini, Daniel Münch, Justine Pascual, et al.

Selected by 31 March 2025

T. W. Schwanitz

Evolutionary Biology

Also in the neuroscience category:

Identification of neuron-glia signaling feedback in human schizophrenia using patient-derived, mix-and-match forebrain assembloids

Eunjee Kim, Yunhee Kim, Soojung Hong, et al.

Selected by 12 June 2025

Justine Gromaire et al.

Neuroscience

Transgenerational effects of perinatal cannabis exposure on female reproductive parameters in mice

Mingxin Shi, Yeongseok Oh, Debra A. Mitchell, et al.

Selected by 05 June 2025

Behiye Sanliturk et al.

Pharmacology and Toxicology

How sleeping minds decide: state-specific reconfigurations of lexical decision-making

Tao Xia, Chuan-Peng Hu, Basak Türker, et al.

Selected by 05 June 2025

Joseph Lefèvre López et al.

Neuroscience

Also in the neuroscience category:

May in preprints – the CellBio edition

A group of preLighters, with expertise in different areas of cell biology, have worked together to create this preprint reading lists for researchers with an interest in cell biology. This month, categories include: 1) Biochemistry/metabolism 2) Cancer cell Biology 3) Cell adhesion, migration and cytoskeleton 4) Cell organelles and organisation 5) Cell signalling and 6) Genetics

 



List by Barbora Knotkova et al.

April in preprints – the CellBio edition

A group of preLighters, with expertise in different areas of cell biology, have worked together to create this preprint reading lists for researchers with an interest in cell biology. This month, categories include: 1) biochemistry/metabolism 2) cell cycle and division 3) cell organelles and organisation 4) cell signalling and mechanosensing 5) (epi)genetics

 



List by Vibha SINGH et al.

Biologists @ 100 conference preList

This preList aims to capture all preprints being discussed at the Biologists @100 conference in Liverpool, UK, either as part of the poster sessions or the (flash/short/full-length) talks.

 



List by Reinier Prosee, Jonathan Townson

2024 Hypothalamus GRC

This 2024 Hypothalamus GRC (Gordon Research Conference) preList offers an overview of cutting-edge research focused on the hypothalamus, a critical brain region involved in regulating homeostasis, behavior, and neuroendocrine functions. The studies included cover a range of topics, including neural circuits, molecular mechanisms, and the role of the hypothalamus in health and disease. This collection highlights some of the latest advances in understanding hypothalamic function, with potential implications for treating disorders such as obesity, stress, and metabolic diseases.

 



List by Nathalie Krauth

‘In preprints’ from Development 2022-2023

A list of the preprints featured in Development's 'In preprints' articles between 2022-2023

 



List by Alex Eve, Katherine Brown

CSHL 87th Symposium: Stem Cells

Preprints mentioned by speakers at the #CSHLsymp23

 



List by Alex Eve

Journal of Cell Science meeting ‘Imaging Cell Dynamics’

This preList highlights the preprints discussed at the JCS meeting 'Imaging Cell Dynamics'. The meeting was held from 14 - 17 May 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal and was organised by Erika Holzbaur, Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz, Rob Parton and Michael Way.

 



List by Helen Zenner

ASCB EMBO Annual Meeting 2019

A collection of preprints presented at the 2019 ASCB EMBO Meeting in Washington, DC (December 7-11)

 



List by Madhuja Samaddar et al.

SDB 78th Annual Meeting 2019

A curation of the preprints presented at the SDB meeting in Boston, July 26-30 2019. The preList will be updated throughout the duration of the meeting.

 



List by Alex Eve

Autophagy

Preprints on autophagy and lysosomal degradation and its role in neurodegeneration and disease. Includes molecular mechanisms, upstream signalling and regulation as well as studies on pharmaceutical interventions to upregulate the process.

 



List by Sandra Malmgren Hill

Young Embryologist Network Conference 2019

Preprints presented at the Young Embryologist Network 2019 conference, 13 May, The Francis Crick Institute, London

 



List by Alex Eve