Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 12, pp 1536–1544 | Cite as

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

  • Chun Chen
  • Qishi Song
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.

Keywords

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

Notes

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).

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.Google Scholar
  2. Arditti, J. 1979. Aspects of the physiology of orchids, pp. 422–697, in H . W. Woolhouse (ed.). Advances in Botanical Research Academic, London.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, C. C. 1989. Classification and distribution of Ficus. Experientia 45:605–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronstein, J. L. 1987. Maintenance of species-specificity in Neotropical fig–pollinator wasp mutualism. Oikos 48:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dudareva, N., and Pichersky, E. 2000. Biochemical and molecular genetic aspects of floral scents. Plant Physiol. 122:627–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galil, J., and Eisikowitch, D. 1968. Flowering cycles and fruit types of Ficus sycomorus in Israel. New Phytol. 67:745–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, D. S. 1967. Fig (Ficus spp.) and fig-wasps (Chalcidoidea). J. Nat. Hist. 1:413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janzen, D. H. 1979. How to be a fig. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:13–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knudsen, J. T., Eriksson, R., Gershenzon, J., and Ståhl, B. 2006. Diversity and distribution of floral scent. Bot. Rev. 72:1–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patel, A. 1996. Variation in a mutualism: phenology and the maintenance of gynodioecy in two Indian fig species. J. Ecol. 84:667–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pellmyr, O., and Thien, L. B. 1986. Insect reproduction and floral fragrances: keys to the evolution of the angiosperms? Taxon 35:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Primack, R. B. 1985. Longevity of individual flowers. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16:15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  31. Ramírez, B. W. 1974. Coevolution of Ficus and Agaonidae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 61:770–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Theis, N., and Raguso, R. A. 2005. The effect of pollination on floral fragrance in thistles. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:2581–2600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Der Pijl, L. 1961. Ecological aspects of flower evolution. II. Zoophilous flower classes. Evolution 15:44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Doorn, W. G. 1997. Effects of pollination on floral attraction and longevity. J. Exp. Bot. 48:1615–1622.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  40. Verkerke, W. 1989. Structure and function of the fig. Experientia 45:612–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Visser, J. H. 1986. Host odor perception in phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 31:121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Visser, J., and A, D. 1978. General green leaf volatiles in the olfactory orientation of the Colorado beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 24:538–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ware, A. B., and Compton, S. G. 1992. Breakdown of pollinator specificity in an African fig tree. Biotropica 24:544–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ware, A. B., and Compton, S. G. 1994. Responses of fig wasps to host plant volatile cues. J. Chem. Ecol. 20:785–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weiss, M. R. 1991. Floral colour changes as cues for pollinators. Nature 354:227–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiebes, J. T. 1979. Co-evolution of figs and their insect pollinators. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical GardenChinese Academy of SciencesKunmingChina
  2. 2.Graduate SchoolChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations