Abstract
Animals often need to make decisions about whether to confront risks, and climate change is making these decisions even more critical by increasing environmental stress. Biogenic amines are crucial for modulating behavior in all animals and may contribute to behavioral adaptations to changing environments through supporting decision-making involving risk. Our review focuses on the neuromodulator dopamine in insects because of its role in risk-related behavioral choices, particularly in the context of ant foraging activity. In ants, individual decisions contribute to the collective regulation of foraging activity. We consider the role of dopamine in the regulation of collective foraging activity to manage water loss in the desert red harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus, in the southwest US that is undergoing severe drought. We discuss dopaminergic circuitry and its involvement in decisions about foraging risk, drawing from both the vertebrate and invertebrate literature, to outline areas of future research in the role of dopamine in collective decision-making in response to changing environmental conditions.
1 Introduction
Animals must make decisions about whether to confront risk in many situations () including predation (–) and longer-term exposure to environmental stress such as high temperatures (, ). Global climate change is altering environmental conditions for many animals, leading them to shift where they may encounter new risks. It is also driving shifts in behavioral strategies (, ) that alter species interactions and the ability to obtain resources (–). Adaptation to these challenges depends on the neural mechanisms that govern risk-related decision-making. While many neurotransmitters are likely involved in these behavioral adaptations (, ), here we will focus on the biogenic amine dopamine (DA), which plays a central role in regulating decision-making under risk.
DA levels in animal brains can change quickly, allowing rapid behavioral adjustment to current conditions (). DA is synthesized and stored in dopaminergic neurons (DANs) until it is released via Ca2+ induced exocytosis (), typically within milliseconds of an action potential (, ). It acts on DA receptors located on target cells, including downstream neurons associated with behavior ().
DA plays a key role in evaluating potential reward and punishment, particularly in risky situations. It influences the assessment of discrepancies between expected and actual outcomes in mammals (–) and insects (, ). When an outcome is better than expected, DA levels increase, reinforcing rewarding actions (). Conversely, when an outcome is worse than expected, DA levels decrease, discouraging the behavior (). DA shapes decision-making and motivation by modulating how attractive or aversive different options appear (): higher DA levels are generally associated with increased motivation to pursue rewards, whereas lower levels reduce the perceived value of potential rewards. Elevated DA levels also promote risk-seeking, while reduced DA activity encourages more cautious decision-making (–).
This review explores how DA influences risk-related behavioral choices, with a focus on its role in foraging decision-making in social insects. We compare the neuroanatomy of DA circuits related to risk-related decision making in vertebrates and insects. DA circuitry and functional mechanisms have been extensively studied in Drosophila melanogaster. Research on DA’s role in social insects, including honey bees and ants, remains limited, in part because their biology is not compatible with some advanced genetic tools. We consider similarities between Drosophila DA circuits and those of social insects and how these circuits may support behavioral adaptations and resilience to changing environmental conditions.
2 DA regulates individual foraging decisions
Foraging behavior is often used as a model to investigate learning processes. In these operational conditioning studies, food serves as a reward to train animals to perform a task, and negative consequences, such as shocks, act as deterrents. Animals must decide whether to engage in foraging behavior or abstain to avoid potential punishment.
Studies involving vertebrates reveal that DA levels significantly affect decisions regarding food rewards and associated risks (, –). DA release in the nucleus accumbens (NAc), part of the ventral striatum, is particularly important for decisions about whether to engage in risk-taking or risk-averse behavior (). When the NAc is impaired, rats tend to exhibit risk-averse behavior (). In rats, the NAc also plays a crucial role in motivation, reward, motor function, and learning (–).
In Drosophila, DA regulates foraging behavior in response to hunger and satiation through two distinct dopaminergic circuits (). Both circuits facilitate foraging behavior regardless of hunger state () and converge on Kenyon cells in the mushroom body (MB), a region important for learning (). Increased MB DAN activity causes hungry fruit flies to overcome their aversion and be more motivated to engage in risky foraging behavior (, ). DA mediates decisions about food choice based on nutritional value, and DANs in the MB are critical for learning the value of beneficial and harmful food components ().
3 Social decision-making and risk
Many animals use social information in decisions about risk. Vertebrates that live in groups, such as insectivorous bats, starlings and bison use social information, such as visual and vocal cues from members of their group, to evaluate food resources, avoid predators and find nests (–). For example, scavengers such as vultures rely on social information, as they forage on patchy resources that can be difficult for an individual to discover and hunt on its own (). In vertebrates, DA is important for social interactions (–), sexual behavior (), and social hierarchy (). However, little is known about the role of DA in vertebrate group decision-making.
Social insects, such as honey bees and ants, live in colonies that work collectively. Individuals respond to social cues, mostly olfactory (, ), that in the aggregate adjust the activity of the colony (, ). Social information influences decisions about activity outside the nest, which entails exposure to risks such as predation and environmental stressors. Individual decisions about foraging contribute to the collective regulation of foraging in social insect colonies, in which food is not directly consumed by foragers. Thus, foraging does not provide an immediate reward to the individual forager. Instead, food is brought back to the nest to be shared with the rest of the colony.
In honey bees, DA acts on neural circuits and receptors associated with both rewarding stimuli and the avoidance of risk. Increased DA is associated with increased motivation for foraging activity, and brain DA levels drop sharply, within seconds, when food is obtained (). Predation risk, assessed as an encounter with a predator or a nestmate that experienced predation stress, reduces both foraging activity and brain DA levels (, ). A pharmacological increase in DA decreases the fear response, rescues foraging activity (, ), and decreases aggressiveness in response to aversive stimuli (). In contrast, DA can increase during avoidance learning () and punishment ().
In ants, there have been few studies of the role of DA in decisions related to risk (, ), although the conserved functions of biogenic amines in insects suggest that DA is involved (). In some species, brain DA levels are highest in foragers, who must decide whether to risk exposure to hazardous conditions outside the nest (–). Starvation also reduces DA levels, which in turn reduces the likelihood that an ant will distribute food to its nestmates (); however, social feeding from other ants can restore brain DA levels. DA is also involved in an ant’s decision whether to defend or retreat when facing danger (). DA supports learning the cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of other ants (), which are used in nestmate recognition. DA increases threatening behavior and aggression towards both other ants () and prey () while reducing affiliatory behavior toward nestmates (). The decision whether to attack or accept another individual is associated with the risk of injury in fighting or harm if a colony is invaded.
4 Function of DA in foraging decision of harvester ants
In red harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex barbatus), DA plays a role in decisions about the risk of water loss (). In the desert, colonies face a trade-off between water loss and foraging (). A forager loses water to evaporation when outside the nest searching for seeds, while colonies obtain water by metabolizing the fats from the seeds they eat (). Thus, a colony must spend water to obtain water and food. Colonies manage this tradeoff using feedback from olfactory interactions inside the nest. An outgoing forager decides to leave the nest on its next trip using simple olfactory interactions: antennal contact with returning foragers bringing in food (–). During antennal contact, the outgoing forager assesses the task-specific cuticular hydrocarbon profile of the returning forager as well as the odor of the food the returning forager is carrying (–). A forager’s decision whether to leave the nest depends on the rate of encounter with returning foragers, which relies on excitable dynamics analogous to leaky integration by neurons (). The rate of forager return, and thus the rate of encounter with returning foragers, provides positive feedback from food availability, because higher food availability leads foragers to find food faster (), resulting in a higher rate of forager return.
A forager’s decision whether to leave the nest to search for food also depends on the humidity the forager experienced on its last trip (). In humid conditions, foraging tends to be high in all colonies (86). In dry conditions, colonies differ in forager decisions about whether to leave the nest on the next trip (87). Colonies show characteristic, consistent behavior across a gradient (86). At one extreme are the Risk Averse (RA) colonies, with foragers unlikely to leave the nest on the next trip in hot, dry conditions. These colonies sacrifice food intake to conserve water. At the other extreme are the Risk Tolerant (RT) colonies, where foragers continue to leave the nest on the next trip in hot, dry conditions.
Colony differences in risk aversion of foragers persist from year to year. In this long-lived species, the queen or reproductive female in the colony produces all the workers and reproductives over her 20-30-year lifetime while the workers live only a year (88). Within a colony, the foragers show similar responses to current humidity, sharing the threshold low humidity at which they will not leave the nest (89). These results, showing consistent behavior in successive cohorts of workers of a particular colony, indicate that forager decisions about the risk of low humidity are associated with heritable traits passed down from the queen and her mates. Heritable variation among colonies can be shaped by natural selection. Early in the current drought, natural selection was favoring the RA colonies that conserve water (87), but this may change as the drought intensifies and the food supply declines ().
Previous work indicates that DA may play a role in foraging decisions about the risk of water loss. First, transcriptomic analysis shows that the expression of genes related to DA metabolism is lower in RA colonies, which tend to reduce foraging in dry conditions (90). Second, pharmacological experiments demonstrate that ants fed with DA were more likely to increase their foraging trips, and the effect was most pronounced in RA colonies (). These results suggest that DA can override risk aversion (Figure 1). Current research is investigating whether DA is lower in RA colonies, asking how DANs differ in the brains of foragers from RA and RT colonies, and how DA levels are influenced by current humidity conditions.
Figure 1
5 Neuroanatomy of dopaminergic neurons in relation to risk
One of the challenges in investigating the role of DA in risk-related decisions in social insects is that it is difficult to manipulate gene expression because many species do not reproduce in the lab. Other tools for mapping the anatomy and function of specific neurons in ants, such as immunohistochemistry, make it possible to compare the DA circuits in D. melanogaster, where genetic techniques are well-developed, with those in honey bees and ants.
Mapping of DAN populations in the Drosophila brain reveals DA circuits that modulate learning in response to reward or punishment (Figure 2A). The Drosophila brain contains 130–140 DANs distributed across 13 distinct clusters in each hemisphere (91–93). Heterogeneous populations of DANs work together to influence risk-based decisions (94, 95). DAN clusters in the anterior medial part of the brain (PAM), which project to the MB, are required for reward learning (96–98) and resolving conflict between aversive and rewarding stimuli (, 99, 100). Short-term memory formation associated with aversive and reward-seeking behavior is mediated by PAM DANs through MB compartments β’2 and γ4, while the signals necessary for long-term memory formation regarding reward, such as the nutritional value of sugar, are relayed by DANs projecting to MB compartments γ5, β1, β2, α1, and γ1pedc (97, 101–105). Certain clusters within the MB are critical for promoting food search efforts in response to food odor, while inactivation of specific DAN subsets within the protocerebral posterior lateral (PPL) region, clusters PPL1 and PPL2, significantly impair odor-tracking behavior (97). A particular group of DANs in one of the protocerebral posterior medial (PPM) clusters (PPM2), is connected to wedge neurons in the central complex and influences state-dependent decisions to consume protein-rich food (106), while the PPM3 cluster is responsible for food-seeking in fed flies ().
Figure 2
MB DANs control temperature preference and mediate avoidance responses to both low and high temperatures (107, 108). Gene expression related to DA synthesis and release is regulated in MB DAN clusters in response to temperature (109). DAN clusters in the MB (PPL1-α3/α’3, PPL1-α2α’2, PPL1-γ2α’1, and PPL1-γ1pedc) respond when the temperature is lower than the optimum (110), and the MB clusters PAM-β’2 and PAM-β2 are also involved in avoiding low temperatures (111).
DAN clusters identified in honey bee brains have shown patterns similar to those in Drosophila. Several clusters in the MB have been identified as homologous to those in Drosophila that support foraging decisions and sense environmental signals (Figure 2B). In honey bees, the C1 and C2 clusters may be homologous to the Drosophila PAM cluster, used in foraging (112). Neurons in the C3 cluster may be the homologues of PPL1, PPL2 and PPM3, which are important for odor-tracking (112).
In ants, DAN clusters have dendritic and axonal projections in most regions of the brain (Figure 2C). For example, in the brains of Indian jumping ants, Harpegnathos saltator, there are clusters in the MB and antennal lobes, the primary olfactory processing regions, with scattered cell bodies in the optic lobe, the primary visual processing region, and the subesophageal zone, a region involved in feeding behavior and learning (113). However, it is not yet known whether any of these neurons are homologous to the DANs in Drosophila.
6 DA receptors
DA receptors are similar in vertebrates and insects. In vertebrates, there are two classes of DA G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs): D1 and D2. The D1 class, which includes two types of DA receptors, D1 and D5, increases intracellular cAMP levels, leading to excitatory actions in the brain that facilitate neurotransmitter release and trigger behavioral responses (114). The receptors in the D1 class are involved in memory, attention, motivation, and movement (115). In contrast, the D2 class, which includes the other three types, D2, D3, and D4, mediates the reduction of cAMP, often resulting in inhibitory effects that modulate neurotransmitter release (116). D2 class receptors are involved in mood and motor regulation (117). D1, D2, and D3 types are the most abundant receptors in the central nervous system ().
Both D1 and D2 type receptors are important for making foraging decisions in rats (). After treatment with a D1 or D2 antagonist, rats showed a greater tendency to choose a smaller but certain reward. Conversely, administration of a DA agonist increased the likelihood of selecting a large but risky reward option and mitigated the effects of both antagonists. Treatment with a D3 receptor antagonist did not significantly affect choice behavior.
Drosophila have four types of DA receptors, which are widely expressed in the brain. These receptors include Dop1R1 and Dop1R2, both of which are homologous to vertebrate D1 class receptors and are implicated in motivation-related behavior such as arousal, drug reward, and learning and memory (, 118, 119). Activation of Dop1R1 in the MB increases the activity of MB output neurons and encodes long-term memory (120). Mechanistic studies on aversive memory suggest that as DA levels decline over time, Dop1R2 acts within the same neurons as Dop1R1 to facilitate forgetting (121). Additionally, Dop1R2 receptor signaling in α/β Kenyon cells (KCs) has been implicated in modulating motivated search behavior (). Dop2R, analogous to vertebrate D2 class receptors, seems to play an opposing role to D1-like receptors (). Dop2R activation in GABAergic anterior paired lateral (APL) neurons, which innervate the MB, plays a critical role in aversive conditioning by restraining GABAergic inhibition (122). The fourth receptor, DopEcR, is unique to D. melanogaster. When activated by DA it leads to neuronal excitation (123), though its role in foraging and reward-seeking behavior is not yet understood.
As in Drosophila, honey bees have both the D1 class-like and D2 class-like receptors (124): AmDop1 and AmDop2 (125) are homologues of DopR1 and DopR2 in Drosophila. AmDop2 regulates worker movement (126), but it is not known whether these DA receptors regulate foraging or reward learning behavior. AmDop3, a homolog of Dop2R and D2 class receptors in vertebrates, has been confirmed to be a third DA receptor in honey bee because its expression pattern in the honey bee brain is different from that of either Amdop1or Amdop2 (127).
In ants, no DA receptors have been identified or categorized yet. However, DA receptor antagonists, such as flupentixol, a general D1- and D2-like receptor antagonist (128), have been used to study the function of DA in foraging preferences. Lasius niger workers treated with flupentixol initially learned an odor linked to a reward but failed to retrieve this memory 24 hours later (). This suggests that DA in ants acts on similar DA receptors as in other insects and is essential for long-term memory in ants.
To date, no mapping of DANs or DA receptors has been conducted in harvester ant brains. Future research will focus on identifying the types and distribution of DA receptors in ants and mapping their dopaminergic circuitry. By comparing these findings with existing data from Drosophila and honey bees, we can gain valuable insight into the evolutionary conservation and functional roles of DA in regulating foraging decisions in social insects. Understanding how dopaminergic pathways influence foraging behavior in ants will provide a broader perspective on the neuromodulatory mechanisms underlying collective decision-making in eusocial species.
7 Conclusions
DA plays a crucial role in risk-based decision-making across diverse animal species and influences individual decisions that lead to the collective regulation of foraging activity in social insect colonies. Research in vertebrates and Drosophila has revealed well-defined dopaminergic circuits that regulate reward perception, motivation, and risk assessment.
Integrating pharmacological manipulations and behavioral analyses with neuroanatomical comparisons of dopaminergic cell expression and receptor distributions across Drosophila, honey bees, and ants will show whether neural pathways involved in decision-making are evolutionarily conserved. This can elucidate the mechanisms of decision-making in collective behavior, and predict the possibilities for the adaptation of social organisms to changing environmental conditions.
Statements
Author contributions
DY: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JK: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. DG: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
YoshimuraJClarkCW. Individual adaptations in stochastic environments. Evol Ecol. (1991) 5:173–92. doi: 10.1007/BF02270833
2
LimaSL. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Study Behav. (1998) 27:215–90. doi: 10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60366-6
3
PolisGAMyersCAHoltRD. The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. (1989) 20:297–330. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001501
4
McNamaraJM. The starvation-predation trade-off and some behavioural and ecological consequences. In: Behavioural mechanisms of food selection. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer (1990). p. 39–59.
5
CaracoTBlanckenhornWUGregoryGMNewmanJARecerGMZwickerSM. Risk-sensitivity: ambient temperature affects foraging choice. Anim Behav. (1990) 39:338–45. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80879-6
6
StahlschmidtZRBrashearsJDeNardoDF. The role of temperature and humidity in python nest site selection. Anim Behav. (2011) 81:1077–81. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.024
7
DraperAMWeissburgMJ. Impacts of global warming and elevated CO2 on sensory behavior in predator-prey interactions: A review and synthesis. Front Ecol Evol. (2019) 7:72. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00072
8
BeeverEAHallLEVarnerJLoosenAEDunhamJBGahlMKet al. Behavioral flexibility as a mechanism for coping with climate change. Front Ecol Environ. (2017) 15:299–308.
9
BergstromDMWieneckeBCVan den HoffJHughesLLindenmayerDBAinsworthTDet al. Combating ecosystem collapse from the tropics to the Antarctic. Glob Chang Biol. (2021) 27:1692–703. doi: 10.1002/fee.1502
10
BothC. Food availability, mistiming, and climatic change. In MøllerAPFiedlerWBertholdPEds. Effects of climate change on birds. OUP Oxford (2010) 129–1482.
11
TraillLWLimMLMSodhiNSBradshawCJA. Mechanisms driving change: altered species interactions and ecosystem function through global warming. J Anim Ecol. (2010) 79:937–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01695.x
12
RogersRD. The roles of dopamine and serotonin in decision making: evidence from pharmacological experiments in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology. (2011) 36:114–32. doi: 10.1038/npp.2010.165
13
DoyaK. Modulators of decision making. Nat Neurosci. (2008) 11:410–6. doi: 10.1038/nn2077
14
GarrisPARebecGV. Modeling fast dopamine neurotransmission in the nucleus accumbens during behavior. Behav Brain Res. (2002) 137:47–63. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(02)00284-X
15
WesterinkRHS. Targeting exocytosis: ins and outs of the modulation of quantal dopamine release. CNS Neurol Disord Targets. (2006) 5:57–77.
16
GraceAAFlorescoSBGotoYLodgeDJ. Regulation of firing of dopaminergic neurons and control of goal-directed behaviors. Trends Neurosci. (2007) 30:220–7. doi: 10.2174/187152706775535632
17
LiuCKaeserPS. Mechanisms and regulation of dopamine release. Curr Opin Neurobiol. (2019) 57:46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2019.01.001
18
MishraASinghSShuklaS. Physiological and functional basis of dopamine receptors and their role in neurogenesis: possible implication for Parkinson’s disease. J Exp Neurosci. (2018) 12. doi: 10.1177/1179069518779829
19
Bromberg-MartinESHikosakaO. Midbrain dopamine neurons signal preference for advance information about upcoming rewards. Neuron. (2009) 63:119–26. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.009
20
NestlerEJCarlezonWAJr.The mesolimbic dopamine reward circuit in depression. Biol Psychiatry. (2006) 59:1151–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.09.018
21
RoeschMRCaluDJSchoenbaumG. Dopamine neurons encode the better option in rats deciding between differently delayed or sized rewards. Nat Neurosci. (2007) 10:1615–24. doi: 10.1038/nn2013
22
HuangJZhangZFengWZhaoYAldanondoAde Brito SanchezMGet al. Food wanting is mediated by transient activation of dopaminergic signaling in the honey bee brain. Science. (2022) 376:508–12. doi: 10.1126/science.abn9920
23
RajagopalanAEDarshanRHibbardKLFitzgeraldJETurnerGC. Reward expectations direct learning and drive operant matching in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2023) 120:1–12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2221415120
24
Bromberg-MartinESMatsumotoMHikosakaO. Dopamine in motivational control: rewarding, aversive, and alerting. Neuron. (2010) 68:815–34. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.022
25
VerharenJPHAdanRAHVanderschurenLJMJ. How reward and aversion shape motivation and decision making: A computational account. Neuroscientist. (2020) 26:87–99. doi: 10.1177/1073858419834517
26
FreelsTGGabrielDBKLesterDBSimonNW. Risky decision-making predicts dopamine release dynamics in nucleus accumbens shell. Neuropsychopharmacology. (2020) 45:266–75. doi: 10.1038/s41386-019-0527-0
27
SugamJADayJJWightmanRMCarelliRM. Phasic nucleus accumbens dopamine encodes risk-based decision-making behavior. Biol Psychiatry. (2012) 71:199–205. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322311009498 (Accessed April 9, 2025).
28
YoungJWvan EnkhuizenJWinstanleyCAGeyerMA. Increased risk-taking behavior in dopamine transporter knockdown mice: further support for a mouse model of mania. J Psychopharmacol. (2011) 25:934–43. doi: 10.1177/0269881111400646
29
NorburyAManoharSRogersRDHusainM. Dopamine modulates risk-taking as a function of baseline sensation-seeking trait. J Neurosci. (2013) 33:12982–6. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-12.2013
30
ClarkCADagherA. The role of dopamine in risk taking: a specific look at Parkinson’s disease and gambling. Front Behav Neurosci. (2014) 8:196. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00196
31
KohnoMGhahremaniDGMoralesAMRobertsonCLIshibashiKMorganATet al. Risk-taking behavior: dopamine D2/D3 receptors, feedback, and frontolimbic activity. Cereb Cortex. (2015) 25:236–45. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bht218
32
St OngeJRFlorescoSB. Dopaminergic modulation of risk-based decision making. Neuropsychopharmacology. (2009) 34:681–97. doi: 10.1038/npp.2008.121
33
BardgettMEDepenbrockMDownsNPointsMGreenL. Dopamine modulates effort-based decision making in rats. Behav Neurosci. (2009) 123:242–51. doi: 10.1037/a0014625
34
CaiXLiuCTsutsui-KimuraILeeJHGuoCBanerjeeAet al. Dopamine dynamics are dispensable for movement but promote reward responses. Nature. (2024) 635:1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08038-z
35
MessiasJPMPaulaJRGrutterASBsharyRSoaresMC. Dopamine disruption increases negotiation for cooperative interactions in a fish. Sci Rep. (2016) 6:2–9. doi: 10.1038/srep20817
36
AlikayaARack-WildnerMStaufferWR. Reward and value coding by dopamine neurons in non-human primates. J Neural Transm. (2018) 125:565–74. doi: 10.1007/s00702-017-1793-9
37
StopperCMFlorescoSB. Contributions of the nucleus accumbens and its subregions to different aspects of risk-based decision making. Cognit Affect Behav Neurosci. (2011) 11:97–112. doi: 10.3758/s13415-010-0015-9
38
HikidaTMoritaMMacphersonT. Neural mechanisms of the nucleus accumbens circuit in reward and aversive learning. Neurosci Res. (2016) 108:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2016.01.004
39
CarlezonWAJr.ThomasMJ. Biological substrates of reward and aversion: a nucleus accumbens activity hypothesis. Neuropharmacology. (2009) 56:122–32. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.06.075
40
YawataSYamaguchiTDanjoTHikidaTNakanishiS. Pathway-specific control of reward learning and its flexibility via selective dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbens. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2012) 109:12764–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210797109
41
SawadaMKatoKKuniedaTMikuniNMiyamotoSOnoeHet al. Function of the nucleus accumbens in motor control during recovery after spinal cord injury. Science. (2015) 350:98–101. doi: 10.1126/science.aab3825
42
LandayanDFeldmanDSWolfFW. Satiation state-dependent dopaminergic control of foraging in Drosophila. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-24217-1
43
TsaoCHChenCCLinCHYangHYLinS. Drosophila mushroom bodies integrate hunger and satiety signals to control innate food-seeking behavior. Elife. (2018) 7:1–35. doi: 10.7554/eLife.35264
44
DavisRL. Mushroom bodies and Drosophila learning. Neuron. (1993) 11:1–14. doi: 10.1016/0896-6273(93)90266-T
45
LewisLPCSijuKPAsoYFriedrichABBulteelAJBRubinGMet al. A higher brain circuit for immediate integration of conflicting sensory information in Drosophila. Curr Biol. (2015) 25:2203–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.07.015
46
SayinSDe BackerJ-FSijuKPWosniackMELewisLPFrischL-Met al. A neural circuit arbitrates between persistence and withdrawal in hungry Drosophila. Neuron. (2019) 104:544–58. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.07.028
47
DasGLinSWaddellS. Remembering components of food in Drosophila. Front Integr Neurosci. (2016) 10:1–8. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2016.00004
48
DechmannDKNHeuckeSLGiuggioliLSafiKVoigtCCWikelskiM. Experimental evidence for group hunting via eavesdropping in echolocating bats. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. (2009) 276:2721–8. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0473
49
PowellGVN. Experimental analysis of the social value of flocking by starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in relation to predation and foraging. Anim Behav. (1974) 22:501–5. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(74)80049-7
50
SigaudMMerkleJACherrySGFryxellJMBerdahlAFortinD. Collective decision-making promotes fitness loss in a fusion-fission society. Ecol Lett. (2017) 20:33–40. doi: 10.1111/ele.2017.20.issue-1
51
GilMAHeinAMSpiegelOBaskettMLSihA. Social information links individual behavior to population and community dynamics. Trends Ecol Evol. (2018) 33:535–48. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2018.04.010
52
CutandoLPuighermanalECastellLTarotPBelleMBertasoFet al. Cerebellar dopamine D2 receptors regulate social behaviors. Nat Neurosci. (2022) 25:900–11. doi: 10.1038/s41593-022-01092-8
53
BergeyCMPhillips-ConroyJEDisotellTRJollyCJ. Dopamine pathway is highly diverged in primate species that differ markedly in social behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2016) 113:6178–81. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525530113
54
YamaguchiYAtsumiTPoirotRLeeY-AKatoAGotoY. Dopamine-dependent visual attention preference to social stimuli in nonhuman primates. Psychopharmacol (Berl). (2017) 234:1113–20. doi: 10.1007/s00213-017-4544-6
55
GrahamMDPfausJG. Differential effects of dopamine antagonists infused to the medial preoptic area on the sexual behavior of female rats primed with estrogen and progesterone. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. (2012) 102:532–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2012.06.020
56
YamaguchiYLeeY-AKatoAGotoY. The roles of dopamine D1 receptor on the social hierarchy of rodents and nonhuman primates. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. (2017) 20:324–35. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyw106
57
RichardF-JHuntJH. Intracolony chemical communication in social insects. Insectes Soc. (2013) 60:275–91. doi: 10.1007/s00040-013-0306-6
58
BarrowsEMBellWJMichenerCD. Individual odor differences and their social functions in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (1975) 72:2824–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.7.2824
59
AliMFMorganED. Chemical communication in insect communities: a guide to insect pheromones with special emphasis on social insects. Biol Rev. (1990) 65:227–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1990.tb01425.x
60
KannanKGaliziaCGNouvianM. Olfactory strategies in the defensive behaviour of insects. Insects. (2022) 13:470. doi: 10.3390/insects13050470
61
GuGWangZLinTWangSLiJDongSet al. Bee fear responses are mediated by dopamine and influence cognition. J Anim Ecol. (2024) 4):1–13. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.14224
62
DongSGuGLinTWangZLiJTanKet al. An inhibitory signal associated with danger reduces honeybee dopamine levels. Curr Biol. (2023) 33:2081–2087.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2023.03.072
63
NouvianMMandalSJammeCClaudianosCD’EttorrePReinhardJet al. Cooperative defence operates by social modulation of biogenic amine levels in the honey bee brain. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. (1871) 2018:285. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.2653
64
AgarwalMGuzmánMMorales-MatosCDel Valle DíazRAAbramsonCIGirayT. Dopamine and octopamine influence avoidance learning of honey bees in a place preference assay. PloS One. (2011) 6:1–9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025371
65
JarriaultDFullerJHylandBIMercerAR. Dopamine release in mushroom bodies of the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) in response to aversive stimulation. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34460-1
66
KamhiJFArgandaSMoreauCSTranielloJFA. Origins of aminergic regulation of behavior in complex insect social systems. Front Syst Neurosci. (2017) 11:1–9. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2017.00074
67
OkadaYSasakiKMiyazakiSShimojiHTsujiKMiuraT. Social dominance and reproductive differentiation mediated by dopaminergic signaling in a queenless ant. J Exp Biol. (2015) 218:1091–8. doi: 10.1242/jeb.118414
68
SeidMAHarrisKMTranielloJFA. Age-related changes in the number and structure of synapses in the lip region of the mushroom bodies in the ant Pheidole dentata. J Comp Neurol. (2005) 488:269–77. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9861
69
SeidMATranielloJFA. Age-related repertoire expansion and division of labor in Pheidole dentata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a new perspective on temporal polyethism and behavioral plasticity in ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. (2006) 60:631–44. doi: 10.1007/s00265-006-0207-z
70
SmithARMuscedereMLSeidMATranielloJFAHughesWOH. Biogenic amines are associated with worker task but not patriline in the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex eChinatior. J Comp Physiol A. (2013) 199:1117–27. doi: 10.1007/s00359-013-0854-2
71
WheelerWMBaileyIW. The feeding habits of Pseudomyrmine and other ants. Trans Am Philos Soc. (1920) 22:235–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1005485.
72
AonumaH. Serotonergic control in initiating defensive responses to unexpected tactile stimuli in the trap-jaw ant Odontomachus kuroiwae. J Exp Biol. (2020) 223(19):jeb228874. doi: 10.1242/jeb.228874 (Accessed April 9, 2025).
73
WissinkMNehringV. Appetitive olfactory learning suffers in ants when octopamine or dopamine receptors are blocked. J Exp Biol. (2021) 224:jeb242732. doi: 10.1242/jeb.242732
74
FriedmanDAPilkoASkowronska-KrawczykDKrasinskaKParkerJWHirshJet al. The role of dopamine in the collective regulation of foraging in harvester ants. iScience. (2018) 8:283–94. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2018.09.001
75
SundaramMSteinerEGordonDM. Rainfall, neighbors, and foraging: The dynamics of a population of red harvester ant colonies 1988–2019. Ecol Monogr. (2022) 92:1–29. doi: 10.1002/ecm.v92.2
76
LightonJRBFeenerDHJr.Water-loss rate and cuticular permeability in foragers of the desert ant Pogonomyrmex rugosus. Physiol Zool. (1989) 62:1232–56. doi: 10.1086/physzool.62.6.30156211
77
GordonDMGuetzAGreeneMJHolmesS. Colony variation in the collective regulation of foraging by harvester ants. Behav Ecol. (2011) 22:429–35. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arq218
78
PrabhakarBDektarKNGordonDM. The regulation of ant colony foraging activity without spatial information. PloS Comput Biol. (2012) 8:e1002670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002670
79
SchaferRJHolmesSGordonDM. Forager activation and food availability in harvester ants. Anim Behav. (2006) 71:815–22. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.05.024
80
GreeneMJGordonDM. Cuticular hydrocarbons inform task decisions. Nature. (2003) 423:32. doi: 10.1038/423032a
81
WagnerDTissotMCuevasWGordonDM. Harvester ants utilize cuticular hydrocarbons in nestmate recognition. J Chem Ecol. (2000) 26:2245–57. doi: 10.1023/A:1005529224856
82
GreeneMJPinter-WollmanNGordonDM. Interactions with combined chemical cues inform harvester ant foragers’ Decisions to leave the nest in search of food. PloS One. (2013) 8:1–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052219
83
DavidsonJDArauco-AliagaRPCrowSGordonDMGoldmanMS. Effect of interactions between harvester ants on forager decisions. Front Ecol Evol. (2016) 4:115. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2016.00115
84
BeverlyBDMcLendonHNacuSHolmesSGordonDM. How site fidelity leads to individual differences in the foraging activity of harvester ants. Behav Ecol. (2009) 20:633–8. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp041
85
PagliaraRGordonDMLeonardNE. Regulation of harvester ant foraging as a closed-loop excitable system. PloS Comput Biol. (2018) 14:1–25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006200
86
GordonDMSteinerEDasBWalkerNS. Harvester ant colonies differ in collective behavioural plasticity to regulate water loss. R Soc Open Sci. (2023) 10:230726. doi: 10.1098/rsos.230726
87
GordonDM. The rewards of restraint in the collective regulation of foraging by harvester ant colonies. Nature. (2013) 498:91–3. doi: 10.1038/nature12137
88
GordonDMHölldoblerB. Worker longevity in harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex). Psyche A J Entomol. (1987) 94:341–6. doi: 10.1155/psyc.v94.3-4
89
NovaNPagliaraRGordonDM. Individual variation does not regulate foraging response to humidity in harvester ant colonies. Front Ecol Evol. (2022) 9:756204. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.756204
90
FriedmanDAYorkRAHilliardATGordonDM. Gene expression variation in the brains of harvester ant foragers is associated with collective behavior. Commun Biol. (2020) 3:100. doi: 10.1038/s42003-020-0813-8
91
BudnikVWhiteK. Catecholamine-containing neurons in Drosophila melanogaster: Distribution and development. J Comp Neurol. (1988) 268:400–13. doi: 10.1002/cne.902680309
92
MaoZDavisRL. Eight different types of dopaminergic neurons innervate the Drosophila mushroom body neuropil: Anatomical and physiological heterogeneity. Front Neural Circuits. (2009) 3:1–17. doi: 10.3389/neuro.04.005.2009
93
NässelDRElekesK. Aminergic neurons in the brain of blowflies and Drosophila: dopamine-and tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactive neurons and their relationship with putative histaminergic neurons. Cell Tissue Res. (1992) 267:147–67. doi: 10.1007/BF00318701
94
SchultzWDayanPMontaguePR. A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science. (1997) 275:1593–9. doi: 10.1126/science.275.5306.1593
95
Watabe-UchidaMUchidaN. Multiple dopamine systems: weal and woe of dopamine. In: Cold spring harbor symposia on quantitative biology. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press (2018). 83:83–95.
96
LiuCPlaa̧aisPYYamagataNPfeifferBDAsoYFriedrichABet al. A subset of dopamine neurons signals reward for odour memory in Drosophila. Nature. (2012) 488:512–6. doi: 10.1038/nature11304
97
SijuKPDe BackerJFGrunwald KadowIC. Dopamine modulation of sensory processing and adaptive behavior in flies. Cell Tissue Res. (2021) 383:207–25. doi: 10.1007/s00441-020-03371-x
98
ZhangKGuoJZPengYXiWGuoA. Dopamine-mushroom body circuit regulates saliency-based decision-making in Drosophila. Science. (2007) 316:1901–4. doi: 10.1126/science.1137357
99
BräckerLBSijuKPVarelaNAsoYZhangMHeinIet al. Essential role of the mushroom body in context-dependent CO2 avoidance in Drosophila. Curr Biol. (2013) 23:1228–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.05.029
100
SuhGSBde LeonSB-TTanimotoHFialaABenzerSAndersonDJ. Light activation of an innate olfactory avoidance response in Drosophila. Curr Biol. (2007) 17:905–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.04.046
101
HuetterothWPerisseELinSKlappenbachMBurkeCWaddellS. Sweet taste and nutrient value subdivide rewarding dopaminergic neurons in Drosophila. Curr Biol. (2015) 25:751–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.036
102
MussoP-YTchenioPPreatT. Delayed dopamine signaling of energy level builds appetitive long-term memory in Drosophila. Cell Rep. (2015) 10:1023–31. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.01.036
103
PavlowskyASchorJPlacaisP-YPreatT. A GABAergic feedback shapes dopaminergic input on the Drosophila mushroom body to promote appetitive long-term memory. Curr Biol. (2018) 28:1783–93. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.04.040
104
PlacaisP-Yde TredernÉScheunemannLTrannoySGoguelVHanK-Aet al. Upregulated energy metabolism in the Drosophila mushroom body is the trigger for long-term memory. Nat Commun. (2017) 8:15510. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15510
105
YamagataNIchinoseTAsoYPlaçaisP-YFriedrichABSimaRJet al. Distinct dopamine neurons mediate reward signals for short-and long-term memories. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2015) 112:578–83. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1421930112
106
LiuQTabuchiMLiuSKodamaLHoriuchiWDanielsJet al. Branch-specific plasticity ofa bifunctional dopamine circuit encodes protein hunger. Science. (2017) 539:534–9. doi: 10.1126/science.aal3245
107
BangSHyunSHongSTKangJJeongKParkJJet al. Dopamine signalling in mushroom bodies regulates temperature-preference behaviour in Drosophila. PloS Genet. (2011) 7:e1001346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1001346
108
GaliliDSDyllaKVLüdkeAFriedrichABYamagataNWongJYHet al. Converging circuits mediate temperature and shock aversive olfactory conditioning in Drosophila. Curr Biol. (2014) 24:1712–22. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.062
109
JakšićAMKarnerJNolteVHsuSKBarghiNMallardFet al. Neuronal function and dopamine signaling evolve at high temperature in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol. (2020) 37:2630–40. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa116
110
TomchikSM. Dopaminergic neurons encode a distributed, asymmetric representation of temperature in Drosophila. J Neurosci. (2013) 33:2166–76. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3933-12.2013
111
ShihH-WWuC-LChangS-WLiuT-HSih-Yu LaiJFuT-Fet al. Parallel circuits control temperature preference in Drosophila during ageing. Nat Commun. (2015) 6:7775. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8775
112
TedjakumalaSRRouquetteJBoizeauMLMesceKAHotierLMassouIet al. A tyrosine-hydroxylase characterization of dopaminergic neurons in the honey bee brain. Front Syst Neurosci. (2017) 11:1–17. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2017.00047
113
HoyerSCLiebigJRösslerW. Biogenic amines in the ponerine ant Harpegnathos saltator: Serotonin and dopamine immunoreactivity in the brain. Arthropod Struct Dev. (2005) 34:429–40. doi: 10.1016/j.asd.2005.03.003
114
MauriceNTkatchTMeislerMSprungerLKSurmeierDJ. D1/D5 dopamine receptor activation differentially modulates rapidly inactivating and persistent sodium currents in prefrontal cortex pyramidal neurons. J Neurosci. (2001) 21:2268–77. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-07-02268.2001
115
ValloneDPicettiRBorrelliE. Structure and function of dopamine receptors. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2000) 24:125–32. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7634(99)00063-9
116
FordCP. The role of D2-autoreceptors in regulating dopamine neuron activity and transmission. Neuroscience. (2014) 282:13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.01.025
117
AyanoG. Dopamine: receptors, functions, synthesis, pathways, locations and mental disorders: review of literatures. J Ment Disord Treat. (2016) 2:2. doi: 10.4172/2471-271X.1000120
118
KimY-CLeeH-GHanK-A. D1 dopamine receptor dDA1 is required in the mushroom body neurons for aversive and appetitive learning in Drosophila. J Neurosci. (2007) 27:7640–7. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1167-07.2007
119
LebestkyTChangJ-SCDankertHZelnikLKimY-CHanK-Aet al. Two different forms of arousal in Drosophila are oppositely regulated by the dopamine D1 receptor ortholog DopR via distinct neural circuits. Neuron. (2009) 64:522–36. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.031
120
KaunKRRothenfluhA. Dopaminergic rules of engagement for memory in Drosophila. Curr Opin Neurobiol. (2017) 43:56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2016.12.011
121
BerryJACervantes-SandovalINicholasEPDavisRL. Dopamine is required for learning and forgetting in Drosophila. Neuron. (2012) 74:530–42. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.007
122
ZhouMChenNTianJZengJZhangYZhangXet al. Suppression of GABAergic neurons through D2-like receptor secures efficient conditioning in Drosophila aversive olfactory learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2019) 116:5118–25. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812342116
123
SrivastavaDPEstherJYKennedyKChatwinHRealeVHamonMet al. Rapid, nongenomic responses to ecdysteroids and catecholamines mediated by a novel Drosophila G-protein-coupled receptor. J Neurosci. (2005) 25:6145–55. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1005-05.2005
124
KokayIEbertPRKirchhofBSMercerAR. Distribution of dopamine receptors and dopamine receptor homologs in the brain of the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Microsc Res Tech. (1999) 44:179–89. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0029(19990115/01)44:2/3<179::AID-JEMT9>3.0.CO;2-K
125
MustardJABlenauWHamiltonISWardVKEbertPRMercerAR. Analysis of two D1-like dopamine receptors from the honey bee Apis mellifera reveals agonist-independent activity. Mol Brain Res. (2003) 113:67–77. doi: 10.1016/S0169-328X(03)00091-3
126
MustardJAPhamPMSmithBH. Modulation of motor behavior by dopamine and the D1-like dopamine receptor AmDOP2 in the honey bee. J Insect Physiol. (2010) 56:422–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2009.11.018
127
BeggsKTHamiltonISKurshanPTMustardJAMercerAR. Characterization of a D2-like dopamine receptor (AmDOP3) in honey bee, Apis mellifera. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. (2005) 35:873–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.03.005
128
MellerEBohmakerKGoldsteinMFriedhoffAJ. Inactivation of D1 and D2 dopamine receptors by N-ethoxycarbonyl-2-ethoxy-1, 2-dihydroquinoline in vivo: selective protection by neuroleptics. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. (1985) 233:656–62. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3565(25)22858-0
Summary
Keywords
decision-making, foraging, insect, dopamine, ant
Citation
Ye D, Kamhi JF and Gordon DM (2025) The role of dopamine in foraging decisions in social insects. Front. Insect Sci. 5:1581307. doi: 10.3389/finsc.2025.1581307
Received
21 February 2025
Accepted
01 April 2025
Published
17 April 2025
Volume
5 - 2025
Edited by
Sudeshna Mazumdar-Leighton, University of Delhi, India
Reviewed by
Donato A. Grasso, University of Parma, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Ye, Kamhi and Gordon.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Deborah M. Gordon, dmgordon@stanford.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.