Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: a comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure
Animals develop food preferences based on taste, nutritional quality and to avoid environmental toxins. Yet, measuring preferences in an experimental setting can be challenging since ecologically realistic assays can be time consuming, while simplified assays may not capture natural sampling behavio...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Oecologia 2021-08, Vol.196 (4), p.963-976 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 976 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 963 |
container_title | Oecologia |
container_volume | 196 |
creator | Richman, Sarah K. Muth, Felicity Leonard, Anne S. |
description | Animals develop food preferences based on taste, nutritional quality and to avoid environmental toxins. Yet, measuring preferences in an experimental setting can be challenging since ecologically realistic assays can be time consuming, while simplified assays may not capture natural sampling behavior. Field realism is a particular challenge when studying behavioral responses to environmental toxins in lab-based assays, given that toxins can themselves impact sampling behavior, masking our ability to detect preferences. We address these challenges by comparing different experimental methods for measuring sucrose concentration preference in bumble bees (Bombus impatiens), evaluating the utility of two preference chamber-based methods (ad libitum versus a novel restricted-sampling assay) in replicating bees’ preferences when they fly freely between artificial flowers in a foraging arena. We find that the restricted-sampling method matched a free-flying scenario more closely than the ad libitum protocol, and we advocate for expanded use of this approach, given its ease of implementation. We then performed a second experiment using the new protocol to ask whether consuming the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, known to suppress feeding motivation, interfered with the expression of sucrose preferences. After consuming imidacloprid, bees were less likely to choose the higher-quality sucrose even as they gained experience with both options. Thus, we provide evidence that pesticides interfere with bees’ ability to discriminate between floral rewards that differ in value. This work highlights a simple protocol for assessing realistic foraging preferences in bees and provides an efficient way for researchers to measure the impacts of anthropogenic factors on preference expression. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00442-021-04979-8 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550627205</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A672346735</galeid><jstor_id>48769374</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A672346735</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-e98462771e92c5365a14b0264c1f948a27caa4858b733d071b660f57f2cf27c53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kVtr3DAQhUVIIdu0f6AQWMhL8uDt6G49hpDLQkqhTZ6FrIyMF6-9kWxI_33kOjRsKEEPEqPvnBnpEPKNwooC6O8JQAhWAKMFCKNNUR6QBRWcFdRwc0gWACwXpTBH5HNKGwAqqJQLUvxAl8bYdPUy9NHV02EXMWDEzmNaNt2yGrdVi8sKMX0hn4JrE3593Y_Jw_XV_eVtcffzZn15cVd4oeVQoCmFYlpTNMxLrqSjogKmhKfBiNIx7Z0TpSwrzfkjaFopBUHqwHzId5Ifk7PZdxf7pxHTYLdN8ti2rsN-TJZJCbkBgwk9fYdu-jF2ebpMKaq0ZlK8UbVr0TZd6Ifo_GRqL5RmXCjNJ6_Vf6i8HnHb-L7D0OT6nuB8T5CZAZ-H2o0p2fXvX_ssm1kf-5TyF9tdbLYu_rEU7BSinUO0OUT7N0RbZhGfRWk3ZYTx7XUfqk5m1SYNffzXR5RaGa4FfwFrO6Ne</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2561677254</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: a comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Richman, Sarah K. ; Muth, Felicity ; Leonard, Anne S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Richman, Sarah K. ; Muth, Felicity ; Leonard, Anne S.</creatorcontrib><description>Animals develop food preferences based on taste, nutritional quality and to avoid environmental toxins. Yet, measuring preferences in an experimental setting can be challenging since ecologically realistic assays can be time consuming, while simplified assays may not capture natural sampling behavior. Field realism is a particular challenge when studying behavioral responses to environmental toxins in lab-based assays, given that toxins can themselves impact sampling behavior, masking our ability to detect preferences. We address these challenges by comparing different experimental methods for measuring sucrose concentration preference in bumble bees (Bombus impatiens), evaluating the utility of two preference chamber-based methods (ad libitum versus a novel restricted-sampling assay) in replicating bees’ preferences when they fly freely between artificial flowers in a foraging arena. We find that the restricted-sampling method matched a free-flying scenario more closely than the ad libitum protocol, and we advocate for expanded use of this approach, given its ease of implementation. We then performed a second experiment using the new protocol to ask whether consuming the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, known to suppress feeding motivation, interfered with the expression of sucrose preferences. After consuming imidacloprid, bees were less likely to choose the higher-quality sucrose even as they gained experience with both options. Thus, we provide evidence that pesticides interfere with bees’ ability to discriminate between floral rewards that differ in value. This work highlights a simple protocol for assessing realistic foraging preferences in bees and provides an efficient way for researchers to measure the impacts of anthropogenic factors on preference expression.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-8549</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1939</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00442-021-04979-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Anthropogenic factors ; Assaying ; Behavioural responses ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Bombus impatiens ; Ecology ; Experimental methods ; Feeding preferences ; Flight ; Flowers ; Food preferences ; Foraging ; Human influences ; Hydrology/Water Resources ; Imidacloprid ; Insecticides ; Laboratory methods ; Life Sciences ; Measurement methods ; METHODS ; Motivation ; Nutritive value ; Pesticides ; Plant Sciences ; Preferences ; Research methodology ; Sampling ; Sampling methods ; Sucrose ; Toxins</subject><ispartof>Oecologia, 2021-08, Vol.196 (4), p.963-976</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-e98462771e92c5365a14b0264c1f948a27caa4858b733d071b660f57f2cf27c53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-e98462771e92c5365a14b0264c1f948a27caa4858b733d071b660f57f2cf27c53</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1987-1140</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00442-021-04979-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00442-021-04979-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Richman, Sarah K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muth, Felicity</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leonard, Anne S.</creatorcontrib><title>Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: a comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure</title><title>Oecologia</title><addtitle>Oecologia</addtitle><description>Animals develop food preferences based on taste, nutritional quality and to avoid environmental toxins. Yet, measuring preferences in an experimental setting can be challenging since ecologically realistic assays can be time consuming, while simplified assays may not capture natural sampling behavior. Field realism is a particular challenge when studying behavioral responses to environmental toxins in lab-based assays, given that toxins can themselves impact sampling behavior, masking our ability to detect preferences. We address these challenges by comparing different experimental methods for measuring sucrose concentration preference in bumble bees (Bombus impatiens), evaluating the utility of two preference chamber-based methods (ad libitum versus a novel restricted-sampling assay) in replicating bees’ preferences when they fly freely between artificial flowers in a foraging arena. We find that the restricted-sampling method matched a free-flying scenario more closely than the ad libitum protocol, and we advocate for expanded use of this approach, given its ease of implementation. We then performed a second experiment using the new protocol to ask whether consuming the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, known to suppress feeding motivation, interfered with the expression of sucrose preferences. After consuming imidacloprid, bees were less likely to choose the higher-quality sucrose even as they gained experience with both options. Thus, we provide evidence that pesticides interfere with bees’ ability to discriminate between floral rewards that differ in value. This work highlights a simple protocol for assessing realistic foraging preferences in bees and provides an efficient way for researchers to measure the impacts of anthropogenic factors on preference expression.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Anthropogenic factors</subject><subject>Assaying</subject><subject>Behavioural responses</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bombus impatiens</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Experimental methods</subject><subject>Feeding preferences</subject><subject>Flight</subject><subject>Flowers</subject><subject>Food preferences</subject><subject>Foraging</subject><subject>Human influences</subject><subject>Hydrology/Water Resources</subject><subject>Imidacloprid</subject><subject>Insecticides</subject><subject>Laboratory methods</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Measurement methods</subject><subject>METHODS</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Nutritive value</subject><subject>Pesticides</subject><subject>Plant Sciences</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Sucrose</subject><subject>Toxins</subject><issn>0029-8549</issn><issn>1432-1939</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kVtr3DAQhUVIIdu0f6AQWMhL8uDt6G49hpDLQkqhTZ6FrIyMF6-9kWxI_33kOjRsKEEPEqPvnBnpEPKNwooC6O8JQAhWAKMFCKNNUR6QBRWcFdRwc0gWACwXpTBH5HNKGwAqqJQLUvxAl8bYdPUy9NHV02EXMWDEzmNaNt2yGrdVi8sKMX0hn4JrE3593Y_Jw_XV_eVtcffzZn15cVd4oeVQoCmFYlpTNMxLrqSjogKmhKfBiNIx7Z0TpSwrzfkjaFopBUHqwHzId5Ifk7PZdxf7pxHTYLdN8ti2rsN-TJZJCbkBgwk9fYdu-jF2ebpMKaq0ZlK8UbVr0TZd6Ifo_GRqL5RmXCjNJ6_Vf6i8HnHb-L7D0OT6nuB8T5CZAZ-H2o0p2fXvX_ssm1kf-5TyF9tdbLYu_rEU7BSinUO0OUT7N0RbZhGfRWk3ZYTx7XUfqk5m1SYNffzXR5RaGa4FfwFrO6Ne</recordid><startdate>20210801</startdate><enddate>20210801</enddate><creator>Richman, Sarah K.</creator><creator>Muth, Felicity</creator><creator>Leonard, Anne S.</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1987-1140</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210801</creationdate><title>Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees</title><author>Richman, Sarah K. ; Muth, Felicity ; Leonard, Anne S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-e98462771e92c5365a14b0264c1f948a27caa4858b733d071b660f57f2cf27c53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Anthropogenic factors</topic><topic>Assaying</topic><topic>Behavioural responses</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bombus impatiens</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Experimental methods</topic><topic>Feeding preferences</topic><topic>Flight</topic><topic>Flowers</topic><topic>Food preferences</topic><topic>Foraging</topic><topic>Human influences</topic><topic>Hydrology/Water Resources</topic><topic>Imidacloprid</topic><topic>Insecticides</topic><topic>Laboratory methods</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Measurement methods</topic><topic>METHODS</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Nutritive value</topic><topic>Pesticides</topic><topic>Plant Sciences</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Sucrose</topic><topic>Toxins</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Richman, Sarah K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muth, Felicity</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leonard, Anne S.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Oecologia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Richman, Sarah K.</au><au>Muth, Felicity</au><au>Leonard, Anne S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: a comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure</atitle><jtitle>Oecologia</jtitle><stitle>Oecologia</stitle><date>2021-08-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>196</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>963</spage><epage>976</epage><pages>963-976</pages><issn>0029-8549</issn><eissn>1432-1939</eissn><abstract>Animals develop food preferences based on taste, nutritional quality and to avoid environmental toxins. Yet, measuring preferences in an experimental setting can be challenging since ecologically realistic assays can be time consuming, while simplified assays may not capture natural sampling behavior. Field realism is a particular challenge when studying behavioral responses to environmental toxins in lab-based assays, given that toxins can themselves impact sampling behavior, masking our ability to detect preferences. We address these challenges by comparing different experimental methods for measuring sucrose concentration preference in bumble bees (Bombus impatiens), evaluating the utility of two preference chamber-based methods (ad libitum versus a novel restricted-sampling assay) in replicating bees’ preferences when they fly freely between artificial flowers in a foraging arena. We find that the restricted-sampling method matched a free-flying scenario more closely than the ad libitum protocol, and we advocate for expanded use of this approach, given its ease of implementation. We then performed a second experiment using the new protocol to ask whether consuming the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, known to suppress feeding motivation, interfered with the expression of sucrose preferences. After consuming imidacloprid, bees were less likely to choose the higher-quality sucrose even as they gained experience with both options. Thus, we provide evidence that pesticides interfere with bees’ ability to discriminate between floral rewards that differ in value. This work highlights a simple protocol for assessing realistic foraging preferences in bees and provides an efficient way for researchers to measure the impacts of anthropogenic factors on preference expression.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s00442-021-04979-8</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1987-1140</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0029-8549 |
ispartof | Oecologia, 2021-08, Vol.196 (4), p.963-976 |
issn | 0029-8549 1432-1939 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550627205 |
source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Analysis Anthropogenic factors Assaying Behavioural responses Biomedical and Life Sciences Bombus impatiens Ecology Experimental methods Feeding preferences Flight Flowers Food preferences Foraging Human influences Hydrology/Water Resources Imidacloprid Insecticides Laboratory methods Life Sciences Measurement methods METHODS Motivation Nutritive value Pesticides Plant Sciences Preferences Research methodology Sampling Sampling methods Sucrose Toxins |
title | Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: a comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T19%3A47%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring%20foraging%20preferences%20in%20bumble%20bees:%20a%20comparison%20of%20popular%20laboratory%20methods%20and%20a%20test%20for%20sucrose%20preferences%20following%20neonicotinoid%20exposure&rft.jtitle=Oecologia&rft.au=Richman,%20Sarah%20K.&rft.date=2021-08-01&rft.volume=196&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=963&rft.epage=976&rft.pages=963-976&rft.issn=0029-8549&rft.eissn=1432-1939&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00442-021-04979-8&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA672346735%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2561677254&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A672346735&rft_jstor_id=48769374&rfr_iscdi=true |