Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Frequency-dependent Selection

Frequency-dependent Selection

When the fitness of a trait is influenced by how common it is (i.e., its frequency) relative to different traits within a population, this is referred to as frequency-dependent selection. Frequency-dependent selection may occur between species or within a single species. This type of selection can either be positive—with more common phenotypes having higher fitness—or negative, with rarer phenotypes conferring increased fitness.

Positive and Negative Feedback Loops

Positive and Negative Feedback Loops

Animal organs and organ systems constantly adjust to internal and external changes through a process called homeostasis ("steady state"). Examples of these changes include regulation of the level of glucose or calcium in the blood or internal responses to external temperatures. Homeostasis requires maintaining an internal dynamic equilibrium:

Negative and Positive Feedback

Negative and Positive Feedback

Animal organs and organ systems constantly adjust to internal and external changes through a process called homeostasis ("steady state"). Examples of these changes include regulation of the level of glucose or calcium in the blood or internal responses to external temperatures. Homeostasis requires maintaining an internal dynamic equilibrium:

Predator-Prey Interactions

Predator-Prey Interactions

Predators consume prey for energy. Predators that acquire prey and prey that avoid predation both increase their chances of survival and reproduction (i.e., fitness). Routine predator-prey interactions elicit mutual adaptations that improve predator offenses, such as claws, teeth, and speed, as well as prey defenses, including crypsis, aposematism, and mimicry. Thus, predator-prey interactions resemble an evolutionary arms race.

Inclusive Fitness

Inclusive Fitness

Most altruistic behavior—in which one animal helps another at a cost to themselves—occurs between relatives. Scientists think these altruistic behaviors evolved because they increase the inclusive fitness of the animal providing help.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Non-Target Effects of <i>Trichoderma</i> Spore Suspensions and Secondary Metabolites on Phytoseiid Predatory Mites.

Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)·2026

Same author

Effect of clove oil (Eugenia Caryophyllus) on drone semen quality after cryopreservation.

BMC veterinary research·2026

Same author

Efficacy of Trichoderma spp. spore suspensions against cotton-infesting spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae).

Experimental & applied acarology·2026

Same author

The mediating role of psychological resilience in the relationship between health anxiety and burnout among healthcare workers working in closed environments.

BMC health services research·2026

Same author

The Effects of Silver and Potassium Iodide on Honey Bee (<i>Apis mellifera</i>) Learning.

Insects·2025

Same author

Honey Bee Foraging Decisions Are Shaped by Floral Trait Distinctiveness and Perception of Gains or Losses.

Insects·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 18, 2026

Tactile Conditioning And Movement Analysis Of Antennal Sampling Strategies In Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.)

Tactile Conditioning And Movement Analysis Of Antennal Sampling Strategies In Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.)

Published on: December 12, 2012

Feature-positive and feature-negative learning in honey bees.

Charles I Abramson¹, Ibrahim Cakmak, Meghan E Duell

¹Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.

The Journal of Experimental Biology

|September 22, 2012

Summary

Honey bees learned to associate rewards with specific visual cues, but struggled with complex feature-based discrimination tasks. They showed a preference for the feature-positive plate when pure water was the alternative reward.

More Related Videos

Behavioural Pharmacology in Classical Conditioning of the Proboscis Extension Response in Honeybees (Apis mellifera)

Behavioural Pharmacology in Classical Conditioning of the Proboscis Extension Response in Honeybees (Apis mellifera)

Published on: January 24, 2011

A Proboscis Extension Response Protocol for Investigating Behavioral Plasticity in Insects: Application to Basic, Biomedical, and Agricultural Research

A Proboscis Extension Response Protocol for Investigating Behavioral Plasticity in Insects: Application to Basic, Biomedical, and Agricultural Research

Published on: September 8, 2014

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 18, 2026

Tactile Conditioning And Movement Analysis Of Antennal Sampling Strategies In Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.)

Tactile Conditioning And Movement Analysis Of Antennal Sampling Strategies In Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.)

Published on: December 12, 2012

Behavioural Pharmacology in Classical Conditioning of the Proboscis Extension Response in Honeybees (Apis mellifera)

Behavioural Pharmacology in Classical Conditioning of the Proboscis Extension Response in Honeybees (Apis mellifera)

Published on: January 24, 2011

A Proboscis Extension Response Protocol for Investigating Behavioral Plasticity in Insects: Application to Basic, Biomedical, and Agricultural Research

A Proboscis Extension Response Protocol for Investigating Behavioral Plasticity in Insects: Application to Basic, Biomedical, and Agricultural Research

Published on: September 8, 2014

Area of Science:

Animal Behavior
Cognitive Ecology
Insect Learning

Background:

Honey bees (Apis mellifera anatolica) are crucial pollinators with complex cognitive abilities.
Understanding their learning mechanisms informs ecological interactions and potential applications.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate honey bee learning and decision-making in feature-positive and feature-negative discrimination tasks.
To determine if bees can learn to distinguish between visual cues associated with rewards and non-rewards.

Main Methods:

Sequential trials presenting bees with feature-positive and feature-negative feeding plates.
Manipulating visual cues (blue vs. white circles) and reward types (sucrose, saltwater, pure water).
Comparing bee choices against control groups and simple color-based choices.

Main Results:

Bees consistently favored the plate with the sucrose reward, avoiding saltwater or pure water.
Discrimination learning was not highly successful in either feature-positive or feature-negative treatments.
A feature-positive effect was observed with pure water, leading to faster learning.
Bees showed high fidelity to color cues when directly linked to sucrose rewards.

Conclusions:

Honey bees demonstrate associative learning but face challenges in complex feature discrimination.
The presence of a distinct visual feature aids learning, especially when non-reward options are less aversive.
Simple color-reward associations are learned more readily than complex feature-based rules.