Economic foraging in a floral marketplace: asymmetrically dominated decoy effects in bumblebees.

IF 3.8 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1098/rspb.2024.0843
Claire T Hemingway,Jennie E DeVore,Felicity Muth
{"title":"Economic foraging in a floral marketplace: asymmetrically dominated decoy effects in bumblebees.","authors":"Claire T Hemingway,Jennie E DeVore,Felicity Muth","doi":"10.1098/rspb.2024.0843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While most models of decision-making assume that individuals assign options absolute values, animals often assess options comparatively, violating principles of economic rationality. Such 'irrational' preferences are especially common when two rewards vary along multiple dimensions of quality and a third, 'decoy' option is available. Bumblebees are models of decision-making, yet whether they are subject to decoy effects is unknown. We addressed this question using bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) choosing between flowers that varied in their nectar concentration and reward rate. We first gave bees a choice between two flower types, one higher in concentration and the other higher in reward rate. Bees were then given a choice between these flowers and either a 'concentration' or 'rate' decoy, designed to be asymmetrically dominated on each axis. The rate decoy increased bees' preference in the expected direction, while the concentration decoy did not. In a second experiment, we manipulated choices along two single reward dimensions to test whether this discrepancy was explained by differences in how concentration versus reward rate were evaluated. We found that low-concentration decoys increased bees' preference for the medium option as predicted, whereas low-rate decoys had no effect. Our results suggest that both low- and high-value flowers can influence pollinator preferences in ways previously unconsidered.","PeriodicalId":20589,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences","volume":"189 1","pages":"20240843"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.0843","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While most models of decision-making assume that individuals assign options absolute values, animals often assess options comparatively, violating principles of economic rationality. Such 'irrational' preferences are especially common when two rewards vary along multiple dimensions of quality and a third, 'decoy' option is available. Bumblebees are models of decision-making, yet whether they are subject to decoy effects is unknown. We addressed this question using bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) choosing between flowers that varied in their nectar concentration and reward rate. We first gave bees a choice between two flower types, one higher in concentration and the other higher in reward rate. Bees were then given a choice between these flowers and either a 'concentration' or 'rate' decoy, designed to be asymmetrically dominated on each axis. The rate decoy increased bees' preference in the expected direction, while the concentration decoy did not. In a second experiment, we manipulated choices along two single reward dimensions to test whether this discrepancy was explained by differences in how concentration versus reward rate were evaluated. We found that low-concentration decoys increased bees' preference for the medium option as predicted, whereas low-rate decoys had no effect. Our results suggest that both low- and high-value flowers can influence pollinator preferences in ways previously unconsidered.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
花卉市场中的经济觅食:熊蜂的非对称诱饵效应。
虽然大多数决策模型都假定个体会赋予选项绝对值,但动物经常会对选项进行比较评估,这违反了经济理性原则。这种 "非理性 "偏好尤其常见于两种奖励在多个质量维度上存在差异,并且存在第三种 "诱饵 "选择的情况。大黄蜂是决策模型,但它们是否会受到诱饵效应的影响还不得而知。我们利用熊蜂(Bombus impatiens)在花蜜浓度和奖励率不同的花朵之间进行选择来解决这个问题。我们首先让蜜蜂在两种花之间做出选择,一种是花蜜浓度较高的花,另一种是奖励率较高的花。然后,让蜜蜂在这两种花和 "浓度 "或 "奖励率 "诱饵之间进行选择,诱饵的设计在每条轴上都是不对称的。率诱饵增加了蜜蜂在预期方向上的偏好,而浓度诱饵则没有。在第二项实验中,我们对两个单一奖励维度的选择进行了操作,以检验这种差异是否可以用评价浓度与奖励率的不同来解释。我们发现,正如预测的那样,低浓度诱饵增加了蜜蜂对中等选项的偏好,而低奖励率诱饵则没有影响。我们的结果表明,低价值和高价值的花朵都能以以前未曾考虑过的方式影响授粉者的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
502
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Proceedings B is the Royal Society’s flagship biological research journal, accepting original articles and reviews of outstanding scientific importance and broad general interest. The main criteria for acceptance are that a study is novel, and has general significance to biologists. Articles published cover a wide range of areas within the biological sciences, many have relevance to organisms and the environments in which they live. The scope includes, but is not limited to, ecology, evolution, behavior, health and disease epidemiology, neuroscience and cognition, behavioral genetics, development, biomechanics, paleontology, comparative biology, molecular ecology and evolution, and global change biology.
期刊最新文献
Cooling down is as important as warming up for a large-bodied tropical reptile. Global analysis of acoustic frequency characteristics in birds. Greater plasticity in CTmax with increased climate variability among populations of tailed frogs. Identifying signatures of the earliest benthic bulldozers in emergent subaerial conditions during the colonization of land by animals. Inbreeding avoidance and cost in a small, isolated trout population.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1