Consumption of a nectar alkaloid reduces pathogen load in bumble bees
Diet has a significant effect on pathogen infections in animals and the consumption of secondary metabolites can either enhance or mitigate infection intensity. Secondary metabolites, which are commonly associated with herbivore defense, are also frequently found in floral nectar. One hypothesized function of this so-called toxic nectar is that it has antimicrobial properties, which may benefit insect pollinators by reducing the intensity of pathogen infections. We tested whether gelsemine, a nectar alkaloid of the bee-pollinated plant Gelsemium sempervirens, could reduce pathogen loads in bumble bees infected with the gut protozoan Crithidia bombi. In our first laboratory experiment, artificially infected bees consumed a daily diet of gelsemine post-infection to simulate continuous ingestion of alkaloid-rich nectar. In the second experiment, bees were inoculated with C. bombi cells that were pre-exposed to gelsemine, simulating the direct effects of nectar alkaloids on pathogen cells that are transmitted at flowers. Gelsemine significantly reduced the fecal intensity of C. bombi 7 days after infection when it was consumed continuously by infected bees, whereas direct exposure of the pathogen to gelsemine showed a non-significant trend toward reduced infection. Lighter pathogen loads may relieve bees from the behavioral impairments associated with the infection, thereby improving their foraging efficiency. If the collection of nectar secondary metabolites by pollinators is done as a means of self-medication, pollinators may selectively maintain secondary metabolites in the nectar of plants in natural populations.
KeywordsAntimicrobial Bombus impatiens Crithidia bombi Gelsemine Toxic nectar
We would like to thank Nathan Muchhala and Mario Vallejo-Marín, Richard Karban and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. This study was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. All experiments complied with the current laws of Canada.
- Berenbaum MR (1988) Allelochemicals in insect–microbe–plant interactions; agents provocateurs in the coevolutionary arms race. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Durrer S, Schmid-Hempel P (1994) Shared use of flowers leads to horizontal pathogen transmission. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 258:299–302Google Scholar
- Ehlers BK, Olesen JM (1997) The fruit-wasp route to toxic nectar in Epipactis orchids? Flora 192:223–229Google Scholar
- Gegear RJ, Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD (2006) Bumble-bee foragers infected by a gut parasite have an impaired ability to utilize floral information. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 273:1073–1078Google Scholar
- Golonka AM (2002) Nectar-inhabiting microorganisms and the dioecious plant species Silene latifolia. Department of Botany. Duke University, Durham, p 150Google Scholar
- Isman MB, Duffey SS (1982) Toxicity of tomato phenolic compounds to the fruitworm, Heliothis zea. Entomol Exp Appl 31:370–376Google Scholar
- Konig B (1988) The honeybee as pharmacophorus insect. Entomol Gen 14:145–148Google Scholar
- Lipa JJ, Triggiani O (1988) Crithidia bombi sp n. a flagellated parasite of a bumblebee Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Acta Protozool 27:287–290Google Scholar
- SAS Institute (2006) SAS/STAT 9.1 user’s guide. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
- Schmid-Hempel P (1998) Parasites in social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Slansky F (1992) Allelochemical–nutrient interactions in herbivore nutrient ecology, vol. II. Ecological and evolutionary processes. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites, vol 2, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 135–176Google Scholar
- Strauss SY, Whittall JB (2006) Non-pollinator agents of selection on floral traits. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH (eds) Ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 120–138Google Scholar