Advertisement

We'd like to understand how you use our websites in order to improve them. Register your interest.

Responses of the Pollinating Wasp Ceratosolen solmsi marchali to Odor Variation Between Two Floral Stages of Ficus hispida

Journal of Chemical Ecology volume 34, pages1536–1544(2008)Cite this article

Abstract

During development of figs on Ficus hispida, only the female floral stage is receptive to its pollinator Ceratosolen solmsi marchali. After this stage, the quantity of fig odor decreases. The effects of F. hispida volatiles from receptive figs (figs at the female floral stage, when they are pollinated) and interfloral figs (between the female floral and male floral stages) on their pollinator were studied, together with responses to compounds present in the odor. Odors emitted by both receptive and interfloral figs were attractive to the pollinator. However, wasps preferred the odor of receptive figs to that of interfloral figs even though the quantity of interfloral volatiles increased. Three monoterpenes that included linalool (major constitutent) and two minor compounds limonene and β-pinene from the receptive fig volatiles were used to test the pollinator responses. The levoisomer and racemic mixtures of linalool were attractive to the pollinator at high doses, but the dextroisomer was neutral. (±)-Limonene and (−)-β-pinene at high doses were even less attractive to the pollinator than clean air and were neutral at low doses, while (R)-(+)-, (S)-(−)-limonene were neutral at all doses. In blend tests, all four mixtures of (±)-linalool or (S)-(−)-linalool combined with (±)-limonene or (−)-β-pinene attracted C. solmsi marchali when administered at high doses. (R)-(+)-linalool and (−)-β-pinene enhanced the attractiveness of (S)-(−)-linalool to the pollinator, while enantiomers of limonene did not. These results suggest that both quality and quantity of fig volatiles regulate C. solmsi marchali response and that quality is the main host-finding and floral stage-distinguishing cue for the pollinator. Synergistic effects of some compounds may play a role in enhancing attractiveness of the active compounds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abdurahiman, U. C., and Joseph, K. J. 1976. Observations on the biology and behaviour of Ceratosolen marchali Mayr (Agaonidae, Chalcidoidea, Hymenoptera). Entomon 1:115–121.

  2. Arditti, J. 1979. Aspects of the physiology of orchids, pp. 422–697, in H . W. Woolhouse (ed.). Advances in Botanical Research Academic, London.

  3. Berg, C. C. 1989. Classification and distribution of Ficus. Experientia 45:605–611.

  4. Bronstein, J. L. 1987. Maintenance of species-specificity in Neotropical fig–pollinator wasp mutualism. Oikos 48:39–46.

  5. Dariusz, C., and Stephen, A. T. 1999. Synergistic effect of ethanol to a-pinene in primart attraction of the larger pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda. J. Chem. Ecol. 25:1121–1130.

  6. Dudareva, N., and Pichersky, E. 2000. Biochemical and molecular genetic aspects of floral scents. Plant Physiol. 122:627–633.

  7. Galil, J., and Eisikowitch, D. 1968. Flowering cycles and fruit types of Ficus sycomorus in Israel. New Phytol. 67:745–758.

  8. Gibernau, M., Buser, H. R., Frey, J. E., and Hossaert-Mckey, M. 1997. Volatile compounds from extracts of figs of Ficus carica. Phytochemistry 46:241–244.

  9. Gibernau, M., Hossaert-Mckey, M., Frey, J. E., and Kjellberg, F. 1998. Are olfactory signals sufficient to attract fig pollinators? Ecoscience 5:306–311.

  10. Gori, D. 1983. Post-pollination phenomena and adaptive floral changes, pp. 31–49, in C. E. Jones, and R. J. Little (eds.). Handbook of Experimental Pollination BiologyScientific and Academic Editions, New York.

  11. Grison, L., Edwards, A. A., and Hossaert-Mckey, M. 1999. Interspecies variation in floral fragrances emitted by tropical Ficus species. Phytochemistry 52:1293–1299.

  12. Grison-Pigé, L., Bessière, J. -M., Turlings, T. C. J., Kjellberg, F., Roy, J., and Hossaert-Mckey, M. 2001. Limited intersex mimicry of floral odour in Ficus carica. Funct. Ecol. 15:551–558.

  13. Grison, -Pigé, L., Bessière, J. -M., and Hossaert-Mckey, M. 2002a. Specific attraction of fig-pollinating wasps: role of volatile compounds released by tropical figs. J. Chem. Ecol. 28:283–295.

  14. Grison-Pigé, L., Hossaert-Mckey, M., Greeff, J. M., and Bessière, J. -M. 2002b. Fig volatile compounds—a first comparative study. Phytochemistry 61:61–71.

  15. Hill, D. S. 1967. Fig (Ficus spp.) and fig-wasps (Chalcidoidea). J. Nat. Hist. 1:413–434.

  16. Hoballah, M. E. F., Tamo, C., and Turlings, T. C. J. 2002. Different attractiveness of induced odors emitted by eight maize varieties for the parasitoid Cotesia marginiventris: is quality or quantity important? J. Chem. Ecol. 28:951–968.

  17. Hossaert-Mckey, M., Giberau, M., and Frey, J. E. 1994. Chemosensory attraction of fig-wasps to substances produced by receptive figs. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 70:185–191.

  18. Janzen, D. H. 1979. How to be a fig. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:13–51.

  19. Knudsen, J. T., Tollsten, L., and Bergström, G. 1993. Floral scents—a checklist of volatile compounds isolated by head-space thechniques. Phytochemistry 33:253–280.

  20. Knudsen, J. T., Eriksson, R., Gershenzon, J., and Ståhl, B. 2006. Diversity and distribution of floral scent. Bot. Rev. 72:1–120.

  21. Moore, J. C., Hatcher, M. J., Dunn, A. M., and Compton, S. G. 2003. Fig choice by the pollinator of a gynodioecious fig: selection to rush, or intersexual mimicry? Oikos 101:180–186.

  22. Patel, A. 1996. Variation in a mutualism: phenology and the maintenance of gynodioecy in two Indian fig species. J. Ecol. 84:667–680.

  23. Patel, A., and Hossaert-Mckey, M. 2000. Components of reproductive success in two dioecious fig species, Ficus exasperate and Ficus hispida. Ecology 81:2850–2866.

  24. Patel, A., Anstett, M. -C., Hossaert-Mckey, M., and Kjellberg, F. 1995. Pollinators entering female dioecious figs: why commit suicide? J. Evol. Biol. 8:301–313.

  25. Patt, J. M., French, J. C., Schal, C., Lech, J., and Hartman, T. G. 1995. The pollination biology of Tuckahoe, Peltandra virginica (Araceae). Am. J. Bot. 82:1230–1240.

  26. Pellmyr, O., and Thien, L. B. 1986. Insect reproduction and floral fragrances: keys to the evolution of the angiosperms? Taxon 35:76–85.

  27. Peng, Y. Q., Yang, D. R., and Wang Q. Y. 2005. Quantitative tests of interaction between pollinating and non-pollinating fig wasps on dioecious Ficus hispida. Ecol. Entomol. 30:70–77.

  28. Primack, R. B. 1985. Longevity of individual flowers. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16:15–38.

  29. Proffit, M., Schatz, B., Bessière, J. -M., Chen, C., Soler, C., and Hossaert-Mckey, M. 2008. Signalling receptivity: comparison of the emission of volatile compounds by fig of Ficus hispida before, during and after the phase of receptivity to pollinators. Symbiosis 45:15–24.

  30. Raguso, R. A. 2001. Floral scent, olfaction, and scent-driven foraging behavior, pp. 83–105, in J. D. Thomson, and L. Chittka (eds.). Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: Animal Behaviour and Floral EvolutionCambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  31. Ramírez, B. W. 1974. Coevolution of Ficus and Agaonidae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 61:770–780.

  32. Schiestl, F. P., and Ayasse, M. 2001. Post-pollination emission of a repellent compound in a sexually deceptive orchid: a new mechanism for maximizing reproductive success? Oecologia 126:531–534.

  33. Schiestl, F. P., Ayasse, M., Paulus, H. F., Erdmann, D., and Francke, W. 1997. Variation of floral scent emission and postpollination changes in individual flowers of Ophrys sphegodes subsp. Sphegodes. J. Chem. Ecol. 23:2881–2895.

  34. Song, Q. S., Yang, D. R., Zhang, G. M., and Yang, C. R. 2001. Volatiles from Ficus hispida and their attractiveness to fig wasps. J. Chem. Ecol. 27:1929–1942.

  35. Theis, N., and Raguso, R. A. 2005. The effect of pollination on floral fragrance in thistles. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:2581–2600.

  36. Tooker, J. F., Crumrin, A. L., and Hanks, L. M. 2005. Plant volatiles are behavioral cues for adult females of the gall wasp Antistrophus rufus. Chemoecology 15:85–88.

  37. Van Der Pijl, L. 1961. Ecological aspects of flower evolution. II. Zoophilous flower classes. Evolution 15:44–59.

  38. Van Doorn, W. G. 1997. Effects of pollination on floral attraction and longevity. J. Exp. Bot. 48:1615–1622.

  39. Van Noort, S., Ware, A. B., and Compton, S. G. 1989. Pollinator specific volatile attractants released from the figs of Ficus burtt-davyi. S. Afr. J. Sci C. 85:323–324.

  40. Verkerke, W. 1989. Structure and function of the fig. Experientia 45:612–622.

  41. Visser, J. H. 1986. Host odor perception in phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 31:121–144.

  42. Visser, J., and Avé, D. 1978. General green leaf volatiles in the olfactory orientation of the Colorado beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 24:538–549.

  43. Ware, A. B., and Compton, S. G. 1992. Breakdown of pollinator specificity in an African fig tree. Biotropica 24:544–549.

  44. Ware, A. B., and Compton, S. G. 1994. Responses of fig wasps to host plant volatile cues. J. Chem. Ecol. 20:785–802.

  45. Ware, A. B., Compton, S. G., Kaye, P. T., and Van Noort, S. 1993. Fig volatiles: their role in attracting pollinators and maintaining pollinator specificity. Plant Syst. Evol. 186:147–156.

  46. Weiss, M. R. 1991. Floral colour changes as cues for pollinators. Nature 354:227–229.

  47. Wiebes, J. T. 1979. Co-evolution of figs and their insect pollinators. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:1–12.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Magali Proffit, Prof. Martine Hosseart-McKey (Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, France), and Dr. Susan M. Owen (Lancaster University, UK) for help in chemical analysis of the fig odor and Prof. Jean-Yves Rasplus (Centre de Biologie et de Gestion des Populations, France) for identifying wasps. We also thank Profs. Yang Darong and Li Qingjun (Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, CAS, China) for support. The comments of Prof. Stephen G. A. Compton (University of Leeds, UK) and Dr. Magali Proffit improved the manuscript. This research was supported by the Knowledge Innovation Project and the special support of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (STZ-01-18).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, 650223, China
    • Chun Chen
    •  & Qishi Song
  2. Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100039, China
    • Chun Chen
Authors
  1. Chun Chen
    View author publications
    You can also search for this author in
  2. Qishi Song
    View author publications
    You can also search for this author in

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qishi Song.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, C., Song, Q. Responses of the Pollinating Wasp Ceratosolen solmsi marchali to Odor Variation Between Two Floral Stages of Ficus hispida . J Chem Ecol 34, 1536–1544 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-008-9558-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fig-fig wasp mutualism
  • Ficus hispida
  • Ceratosolen solmsi marchali
  • Post-pollination odor changes
  • Behavioral tests
  • Linalool
  • Limonene
  • β-Pinene
  • Synergistic effect