Here's a link to the original study. What's unclear to me is if bees of the same species show this differentiation, or if what they found is that larger bees live in more urban areas. This could have many reasons, not just cognitive buffers. The carpenter bee is a great example; does the larger genus live in the city because of its brain capacity or because there are more opportunities to drill holes in the soft pine-woods sides of my house? Does the smaller one live in the woods because of a smaller brain or because it's smaller and therefore more susceptible to predation by spiders, wasps, and hornets?

 

"....a new study suggests" that city bees have larger brains?

When they PROVE that with actual measurements, then I might believe that story. (but then size doesn't always matter either)

Living in the country ALL of my 75 years, I've never considered city folks any smarter than country folks.

 

When they PROVE that with actual measurements, then I might believe that story.

Well, they kinda did if you look at the original paper. "Kinda" subject to the caveats I mentioned above.

Where the "cognitive buffer" theory stands on the neural processing scale is well outside of my biology wheelhouse.

 

Shelly, I admit to making it only through the first paragraph of that article because it will make zero difference to my beekeeping. My reply was 99% jest.

 

I have been known to be too serious at times.

 

One of many problems with this sort of study is that the correlation between brain size and something we would measure as intelligence is not possible within a species, let alone between species.

For example, among humans, men have larger brains than women (because they have bigger heads). However they have the same average intelligence.

Also, in humans there is no one to one correspondence between brain size and intelligence.

It is interesting the sorts of things people get other people's money to investigate. The underlying reason for the research is to provide additional material support for the theory of evolution, though it doesn't actually do that. If correct and meaningful it would only provide modest support for the idea of natural selection, which is not in dispute.

It is interesting though. Similar results have been found in bats (the "brains to balls ratio") though I don't recall if that was a rural/urban distinction.

Thanks for posting.

 

Cities would have poorer nectar flows since cities don't have as many trees for forage. So the bees may have to be smarter to forage farther distances in the city where the forage is sparse. I have thought about whether certain races of bees from poor foraging climates may have better foraging abilities in cities, like maybe Saharan bees from the harsh climate of the Sahara Oasis?

 

Cities would have poorer nectar flows since cities don't have as many trees for forage.

Except that this is not always true: urban environments can have better floral diversity and availability than rural areas. However, I defer to the mantra "all beekeeping is local". It all depends on where you are, and what the greenspace looks like -- Philly may be better than the corn belt for example.

 

Near me is the Oxford Bee Lab and I went to their open day and talked to some staff. They focus on nutrition, and do experiments like training bees with sugar water with trace nutrients.

I was told it takes about 5 experiences for bees to learn things in these conditions. Except Buckfasts, which need 7. That slows the experiments down, so they don't use Buckfasts!