Does quantity matter to a stingless bee?

Eckert, Johanna; Bohn, Manuel; Spaethe, Johannes

doi:10.1007/s10071-021-01581-6

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 80 publications

(111 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tebbich et al 2016 ; van Horik et al 2020 ). In this increasing mapping of cognitive abilities, however, there is a noticeable deficit in the amount of attention directed towards investigating problem solving or cognition in invertebrate species (Collado et al 2021 ; Eckert et al 2022 ; Perry and Chittka 2019 ; Pfeffer and Wolf 2020 ; Philips et al 2017 ).…”

Section: Brain Size As a Proxy For Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding the neuro to cognition: from food storing to nest building

Healy

2022

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typically, investigations of animal cognition couple careful experimental manipulations with examination of the animal’s behavioural responses. Sometimes those questions have included attempts to describe the neural underpinnings of the behavioural outputs. Over the past 25 years, behaviours that involve spatial learning and memory (such as navigation and food storing) has been one context in which such dual or correlated investigations have been both accessible and productive. Here I review some of that work and where it has led. Because of the wealth of data and insights gained from that work and song learning before it, it seems that it might also be useful to try to add some neurobiology to other systems in animal cognition. I finish then, with a description of recent work on the cognition and neurobiology of avian nest building. It is still relatively early days but asking questions about the cognition of nest building has already shown both neural correlates of nest building and that learning and memory play a much greater role in this behaviour than previously considered. While it is not yet clear how putting these components together will be synergistic, the examples of song learning and food storing provide encouragement. Perhaps this might be true for other behaviours too?

show abstract

Section: Brain Size As a Proxy For Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding the neuro to cognition: from food storing to nest building

Healy

2022

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The stingless bee Trigona fulviventris prefers sweet and salty over savory nectar

Villagómez,

Spaethe,

Leonhardt

2024

Apidologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nectar, an important reward in plant-pollinator interactions, mainly provides sugars, but also other nutrients. Nectar sugar content is known to affect pollinator preferences, while the effect of other nectar nutrients on flower visitor choices is less well understood. To explore whether nectar nutrients affect the foraging preferences of the stingless bee Trigona fulviventris, we conducted feeding choice experiments with sucrose solution enriched with either an amino acid mixture (in high and low concentrations), sodium chloride (table salt), a fatty acid mixture, or quinine (a bitter tasting substance used as negative control) against pure sucrose solution in a lowland rainforest in Costa Rica. Bees were first trained to feeders presenting either a yellow (only sucrose solution) or a blue (sucrose solution plus tested substance) visual cue that the bees could use to associate with the solution content. They were subsequently offered a choice between the blue and yellow feeders in an unrewarded test. The bees preferred pure sucrose solutions over sucrose solutions with quinine, amino acids, or fatty acids, but not over solutions with salt. Our findings indicate that T. fulviventris is able to differentiate various nutrients in nectar and prefers pure sucrose solution or sucrose solutions with salt. Sugar and salt may therefore represent important nutrients in nectar and are likely key cues to assess nectar quality in tropical stingless bees. In contrast, other nutrients appear to compromise the bees’ taste for nectar and are likely obtained from other sources.

show abstract

Some Tentative Welfare Range Estimates

Duffy,

Barrett,

Gaffney

et al. 2024

Weighing Animal Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter provides some tentative welfare range estimates, where a welfare range is understood as the difference between the most intense positively valenced experience and the most intense negatively valenced experience available to members of a species. These estimates are conditional on hedonism, which means that they don’t reflect the implications of uncertainty about the correct theory of welfare, and they are intended as a proof of concept, so they do not factor in every possible complexity even given hedonism. The chapter’s main aim is to explain a method we can use to generate estimates. Along the way, we provide an overview of the proxies we used for differences in the possible intensities of valenced states across species and a summary of the literature reviews about those proxies for several farmed species. Finally, we explain how those reviews can be converted into specific estimates.

show abstract

Does quantity matter to a stingless bee?

Cited by 4 publications

References 80 publications

Adding the neuro to cognition: from food storing to nest building

Adding the neuro to cognition: from food storing to nest building

The stingless bee Trigona fulviventris prefers sweet and salty over savory nectar

Some Tentative Welfare Range Estimates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About