Alarm pheromone perception in honey bees is decreased by smoke (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
- 235 Downloads
The application of smoke to honey bee(Apis mellifera) antennae reduced the subsequent electroantennograph response of the antennae to honey bee alarm pheromones, isopentyl acetate, and 2-heptanone. This effect was reversible, and the responsiveness of antennae gradually returned to that of controls within 10–20 min. A similar effect occurred with a floral odor, phenylacetaldehyde, suggesting that smoke interferes with olfaction generally, rather than specifically with honey bee alarm pheromones. A reduction in peripheral sensitivity appears to be one component of the mechanism by which smoke reduces nest defense behavior of honey bees.
Key wordshoney bee Apis mellifera alarm pheromone electroantennograph
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Biamonte, G. (1974). Engorgement behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera) stimulated by smoke.Am. Bee J. 114 97–99.Google Scholar
- Bjostad, L. B., and Roelofs, W. L. (1980). An inexpensive electronic device for measuring electroantennogram responses to sex pheromone components with a voltmeter.Physiol. Entomol. 5 309–314.Google Scholar
- Cantelo, W. W., and Jacbson, M. (1979). Phenylacetaldehyde attracts moths to bladder flower and to blacklight traps.Environ. Entomol. 8 444–447.Google Scholar
- Conrad, H. S. (1940). Bees raise questions.Sci. Mon. N.Y. 51 57–64.Google Scholar
- Crane, E. (1985).The Archeology of Beekeeping, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
- Fraser, H. M. (1951).Beekeeping in Antiquity, 2nd ed., University of London Press, London.Google Scholar
- Free, J. B. (1968). Engorging of honey by worker honeybees when their colony is smoked.J. Apic. Res. 7 135–138.Google Scholar
- Newton, D. C. (1968). Behavioural response of honeybees to colony disturbance by smoke. I. Engorging behavior.J. Apic Res. 7 3–9.Google Scholar
- Newton, D. C. (1969). Behavioural response of honeybees to colony disturbance by smoke. II. Guards and foragers.J. Apic. Res. 8 79–82.Google Scholar