Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
1992
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13413038 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- (Uploaded by Plazi for the Bat Literature Project) Pollinators tend to visit flowers of one plant species repeatedly even when flowers of other rewarding plant species are available. Darwin proposed that such flower constancy occurs because flower handling methods learned on one plant species interfere with previously learned flower handling methods of other plant species. Darwin's interference hypothesis was tested by first allowing bumble bees, Bombus bimaculatus, to learn flower handling methods on one plant species (comfrey, Symphytum officinale), and then retesting the bees on comfrey after they had learned to handle flowers o f a second species (vetch, Vicia cracca). The same experiment was repeated with different bees and with the order of the plant species reversed. Interference effects were detected by comparing flower access times (time to insert tongue into the flower) during the retesting period with the initial flower access times. Bees relearning handling methods for comfrey returned to their initial access times after one flower visit; bees relearning handling methods for vetch took two flower visits. The interference effects detected were 0-8 s for comfrey (a 47% increase over initial access times) and 2.0 s for vetch (a 120% increase). These results indicate that learning to handle flowers of one plant species does interfere with remembering previously learned flower handling methods. However, interference effects resulting from switches between comfrey and vetch under biologically realistic conditions appear to be relatively small, and are unlikely to account fully for flower constancy by bumble bees.