Advertisement

Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 393–400 | Cite as

Associative learning of non-nestmate odor marks between colonies of the stingless bee Scaptotrigona mexicana Guérin (Apidae, Meliponini) during foraging

  • Erik Solórzano-Gordillo
  • Julio C. Rojas
  • Leopoldo Cruz-López
  • Daniel Sánchez
Research Article

Abstract

Stingless bees use chemical signals to communicate nestmates the location of rich food sources. Such information may be intercepted by conspecifics from other colonies. In this study, we investigated if chemical information from non-nestmates can be used to orient foragers of the stingless bee Scaptotrigona mexicana to food sources. In the first experiment, foragers were exposed to feeders that were differentially odor-marked by nestmates and non-nestmates, and their preferences for both types of feeders were recorded. In a second experiment, we marked different feeders with mandibular or labial gland extracts of nestmates and non-nestmates. Results from the first experiment indicate that foragers were able to associate odor marks from non-nestmates with rich food sources. In the second experiment, we observed that foragers did not differentiate between the gland extracts of nestmates and those from non-nestmates. We discuss these findings within a behavioral and ecological framework.

Keywords

Pheromone Recruitment Foraging Meliponine Espionage 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the help of the following people during field and laboratory work: Leonardo Arévalo-Monterrubio, Augusto Campollo-Ovalle, Ricardo Toledo-Hernández, Andy Villarreal Cruz and Miguel Guzmán. This study was possible thanks to the support of SEP-CONACYT agreement no. 128702 “Evolución de la cleptobiosis en Lestrimelitta”, SEP-CONACYT agreement no. 106043 “Land use effect on the conservation of bees’ biodiversity” and UC-MEXUS project “Olfactory eavesdropping and against a cleptoparasite, Lestrimelitta niitkib”. The first autor was supported with a scholarship from CONACYT.

References

  1. Barth FG, Hrncir M, Jarau S (2008) Signals and cues in the recruitment behavior of stingless bees (Meliponini). J Comp Physiol A 194:313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boogert NJ, Hofstede FE, Monge IA (2006) The use of food source scent marks by the stingless bee Trigona corvina (Hymenoptera: Apidae): the importance of the depositor’s identity. Apidologie 37:366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchwald R, Breed MD (2005) Nestmate recognition cues in a stingless bee, Trigona fulviventris. Anim Behav 70:1331–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman RE, Wang J, Bourke AFG (2003) Genetic analysis of spatial foraging patterns and resource sharing in bumble bee pollinators. Mol Ecol 12:2801–2808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cruz-Landim C, Ferreira-Caliman M, Gracioli-Vitti L, Zucchi R (2013) Correlation between mandibular gland secretion and cuticular hydrocarbons in the stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata. Genet Mol Res 11:966–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruz-López L, Aguilar S, Malo E, Rincón M, Guzman M, Rojas J (2007) Electroantennogram and behavioral responses of workers of the stingless bee Oxytrigona mediorufa to mandibular gland volatiles. Entomol Exp Appl 123:43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cruz-López L, Malo EA, Morgan ED, Rincon M, Guzmán M, Rojas JC (2005) Mandibular gland secretion of Melipona beecheii: chemistry and behavior. J Chem Ecol 31:1621–1632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Downs SG, Ratnieks FLW (1999) Recognition of conspecifics by honeybee guards uses nonheritable cues acquired in the adult stage. Anim Behav 58:643–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodale E, Beauchamp G, Magrath RD, Nieh JC, Ruxton GD (2010) Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 25:354–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hrncir M, Barth FG, Tautz J (2006) Vibratory and airborne-sound signals in bee communication (Hymenoptera). In: Drosopoulous S, Claridge MF (eds) Insect sounds and communication: physiology, behaviour, ecology, and evolution. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 421–436Google Scholar
  11. Hubbell SP, Johnson LK (1978) Comparative foraging behavior of six stingless bee species exploiting a standardized resource. Ecology 59:1123–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jarau S (2009) Chemical communication during food exploitation in stingless bees. In: Jarau S, Hrncir M (eds) Food exploitation by social insects: ecological, behavioral, and theoretical approaches. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jarau S, Dambacher J, Twele R, Aguilar I, Fracke W, Ayasse M (2010) The trail pheromone of a stingless bee, Trigona corvina (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini), varies between populations. Chem Senses 35:593–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarau S, Hrncir M, Schmidt VM, Zucchi R, Barth FG (2003) Effectiveness of recruitment behavior in stingless bees (Apidae, Meliponini). Insec Soc 50:365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jarau S, Hrncir M, Zucchi R, Barth F (2004) A stingless bee uses labial gland secretions for scent trail communication (Trigona recursa Smith 1863). J Comp Physiol A 190:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. John L, Aguilar I, Ayasse M, Jarau S (2012) Nest-specific composition of the trail pheromone of the stingless bee Trigona corvina within populations. Insec Soc 59:527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leadbeater E, Chittka L (2009) Bumble-bees learn the value of social cues through experience. Biol Lett rsbl-2008.0692Google Scholar
  18. Leonhardt SD (2017) Chemical Ecology of Stingless Bees. J Chem Ecol 43:385–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lichtenberg EM, Hrncir M, Turatti IC, Nieh JC (2011) Olfactory eavesdropping between two competing stingless bee species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:763–774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindauer M, Kerr WE (1960) Communication between the workers of stingless bees. Bee World 41:29–41, 65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mikery-Pacheco O, Solórzano-Gordillo E, Sánchez-Guillén D (2013) Método de marcaje masivo de abejas Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) para estudios ecoetológicos. Acta Zool Mex 29:248–251Google Scholar
  22. Nieh J, Barreto L, Contrera F, Imperatriz-Fonseca V (2004) Olfactory eavesdropping by a competitively foraging stingless bee, Trigona spinipes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:1633–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nieh JC (2004) Recruitment communication in stingless bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini). Apidologie 35:159–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nieh JC, Contrera FA, Nogueira–Neto P (2003a) Pulsed mass recruitment by a stingless bee, Trigona hyalinata. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:2191–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nieh JC, Contrera FAL, Rangel J, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL (2003b) Effect of food location and quality on recruitment sounds and success in two stingless bees, Melipona mandacaia and Melipona bicolor. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nieh JC, Sánchez D (2005) Effect of food quality, distance and height on thoracic temperature in the stingless bee Melipona panamica. J Exp Biol 208:3933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nunes TM, Nascimento FS, Turatti IC, Lopes NP, Zucchi R (2008) Nestmate recognition in a stingless bee: does the similarity of chemical cues determine guard acceptance? Anim Behav 75:1165–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nunes TM, von Zuben LG, Costa L, Venturieri GC (2014) Defensive repertoire of the stingless bee Melipona flavolineata Friese (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Sociobiology 61:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pohlert T (2014) The pairwise multiple comparison of mean ranks package (PMCMR). R packageGoogle Scholar
  30. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  31. Reichle C, Aguilar I, Ayasse M, Jarau S (2011) Stingless bees (Scaptotrigona pectoralis) learn foreign trail pheromones and use them to find food. J Comp Physiol A 197:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reichle C, Aguilar I, Ayasse M, Twele R, Francke W, Jaraua S (2013) Learnt information in species-specific ‘trail pheromone’ communication in stingless bees. An Behav 85:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roselino AC, Rodrigues AV, Hrncir M (2016) Stingless bees (Melipona scutellaris) learn to associate footprint cues at food sources with a specific reward context. J Comp Physiol A 202:657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saleh N, Chittka L (2006) The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sánchez D, Nieh JC, Hénaut Y, Cruz L, Vandame R (2004) High precision during food recruitment of experienced (reactivated) foragers in the stingless bee Scaptotrigona mexicana (Apidae, Meliponini). Naturwissenschaften 91:346–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sánchez D, Nieh JC, León A, Vandame R (2009) Food recruitment information can spatially redirect employed stingless bee foragers. Ethology 115:1175–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sánchez D, Nieh JC, Vandame R (2008) Experience-based interpretation of visual and chemical information at food sources in the stingless bee Scaptotrigona mexicana. Anim Behav 76:407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sánchez D, Nieh JC, Vandame R (2011) Visual and chemical cues provide redundant information in the multimodal recruitment system of the stingless bee Scaptotrigona mexicana (Apidae, Meliponini). Insec Soc 58:575–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sánchez D, Solórzano-Gordillo E, Vandame R (2016) A study on intraspecific resource partitioning in the stingless bee Scaptotrigona mexicana Guérin (Apidae, Meliponini) using behavioral and molecular techniques. Neotrop Entomol 45:518–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schorkopf DLP, Hrncir M, Mateus S, Zucchi R, Schmidt VM, Barth FG (2009) Mandibular gland secretions of meliponine worker bees: further evidence for their role in interspecific and intraspecific defence and aggression and against their role in food source signalling. J Exp Biol 212:1153–1162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honeybee colonies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Slaa EJ, Hughes WOH (2009) Local enhancement, local inhibition, eavesdropping, and the parasitism of social insect communication. In: Jarau S, Hrncir M (eds) Food exploitation by social insects. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slaa EJ, Wassenberg J, Biesmeijer JC (2003) The use of field-based social information in eusocial foragers: local enhancement among nestmates and heterospecifics in stingless bees. Ecol Entomol 28:369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith B, Roubik D (1983) Mandibular glands of stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae): chemical analysis of their contents and biological function in two species of Melipona. J Chem Ecol 9:1465–1472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Stephens RE, Beekman M, Gloag R (2017) The upside of recognition error? Artificially aggregated colonies of the stingless bee Tetragonula carbonaria tolerate high rates of worker drift. Biol J Linn Soc 121:258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strang CG, Sherry DF (2014) Serial reversal learning in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens). Anim Cogn 17:723–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Vit P, Pedro SR, Roubik D (2013) Pot-honey: a legacy of stingless bees. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Waddington KD, Herbert TJ, Visscher PK, Richter MR (1994) Comparisons of forager distributions from matched honey bee colonies in suburban environments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Waddington KD, Holden LR (1979) Optimal foraging: on flower selection by bees. Am Nat 114:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilms J, Eltz T (2008) Foraging scent marks of bumblebees: footprint cues rather than pheromone signals. Naturwissenschaften 95:149–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.El Colegio de la Frontera SurTapachulaMexico

Personalised recommendations