Advertisement

Chemoecology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 165–169 | Cite as

Is the bee louse Braula coeca (Diptera) using chemical camouflage to survive within honeybee colonies?

  • Stephen J. Martin
  • Joe Bayfield
Short Communication

Abstract

The bee louse Braula coeca is a highly specialised flattened, wingless fly that spends its entire adult life on adult honeybees. It feeds by stealing food directly from bees during social feeding (trophallaxis). The Braula fly has a preference to infest the honeybee queen. The queen is the most attended individual in the colony but despite this the adult flies remain undetected by the workers. This is due to Braula possessing a cuticular hydrocarbon profile that mirrors that of their host honeybee colony, despite Diptera and Hymenoptera orders having separated over 290 million years ago. This chemical camouflage is most likely through odour acquisition from the honeybee host since even small colony-specific differences in the alkene isomer patterns present in the honeybees were also detected in the Braula’s profile. This finding further supports the idea that the honeybee recognition cues are contained within the alkene part of their hydrocarbon profile and Braula exploit this to remain undetected within an otherwise hostile colony.

Keywords

Cuticular hydrocarbons Camouflage Braula Honeybees Alkenes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Falko Drijfhout of Keele University for access to the GC-MS and Ricarda Kather of Sheffield University for helping maintaining the study colonies and comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Aitchison J (1986) The statistical analysis of compositional data Monographs in statistics and applied probability. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey L, Ball BV (1991) Honey bee pathology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Breed MD (1998) Recognition pheromones of the honey bee. Bioscience 48:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaline N, Sandoz JC, Martin SJ, Ratnieks FLW, Jones GR (2005) Learning and discrimination of individual cuticular hydrocarbons by honey bees (Apis mellifera). Chem Senses 30:327–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dani FR, Jones GR, Corsi S, Beard R, Pradella D, Turillazi S (2005) Nest mate recognition cues in the honey bee: differential importance of cuticular alkanes and alkenes. Chem Senses 30:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Errard C, Fresneau D, Heinze J, Francoeur A, Lenoir A (1997) Social organization in the guest-ant Formicoxenus provancheri. Ethology 103:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falcon T, Ferreira-Caliman MJ, Nunes FMF, Tanaka ED, do Nascimento FS, Bitondi MMG (2014) Exoskeleton formation in Apis mellifera: Cuticular hydrocarbons profiles and expression of desaturase and elongase genes during pupal and adult development. Insect Biochem Mol Bio 50:68–81Google Scholar
  8. Guillem RM, Drijfhout F, Martin SJ (2014) Chemical deception among ant social parasites. Curr Zoo 60:62–75Google Scholar
  9. Kather R, Drijfhout FP, Martin SJ (2011) Task group differences in cuticular lipids in the honey bee Apis mellifera. J Chem Ecol 37:205–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambardi D, Dani FR, Turillazzi S, Boomsma JJ (2007) Chemical mimicry in an incipient leaf-cutting ant social parasite. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:843–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lenoir A, Malosse C, Yamaoka R (1997) Chemical mimicry between parasitic ants of the genus Formicoxenus and their host Myrmica (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Biochem System Ecol 25:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lenoir A, D’ettorre P, Errard C (2001) Chemical ecology and social parasitism in Ants. Annu Rev Entomol 46:573–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin SJ, Jones GJ, Ratnieks FLW, Middleton H, Châline N (2002) Reassessing the role of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) Dufour’s gland in egg marking. Naturwissenschaften 89:528–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin SJ, Jenner EA, Drijfhout FP (2007) Chemical deterrent enables a socially parasitic ant to invade multiple hosts. Proc R Soc B 274:2717–2721PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin SJ, Carruthers JM, Williams PH, Drijfhout FP (2010) Host specific social parasites (Psithyrus) indicate chemical recognition system in bumblebees. J Chem Ecol 36:855–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morse RA, Flottum K (1998) Honey bee pests, predators, and diseases, 3rd edn. A.I. Root Company, MedinaGoogle Scholar
  17. Nash DR, Boomsma JJ (2008) Communication between hosts and social parasites. In: d’ettorre P, Hughes DP (eds) In sociobiology of communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nation JL, Sanford MT, Milne K (1991) Comparison of cuticular hydrocarbons from Varroa mites and honey bees. Am Bee J 131:778Google Scholar
  19. Smith IB Jr, Caron DM (1985) Distribution of the beelouse, Braula coeca, in Maryland and worldwide. Am Bee J 125:294–296Google Scholar
  20. van Zweden JS, d’Ettorre P (2010) Insect hydrocarbons: biology, biochemistry, and chemical ecology. In: Blomquist G, Bagneres A (eds) Nestmate recognition in social insects and the role of hydrocarbons. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 222–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wyatt TD (2014) Pheromones and animal behaviour chemical signals and signatures, 2nd edn. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and Life SciencesThe University of SalfordManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations