Advertisement

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1–7 | Cite as

Flowers with caffeinated nectar receive more pollination

  • James D. Thomson
  • Miruna A. Draguleasa
  • Marcus Guorui Tan
Original Paper

Abstract

Floral nectar functions to attract insects, so the inclusion of toxic compounds calls for explanation. Recent work shows that honeybees prefer nectars with low concentrations of caffeine and nicotine, and that associative learning by honeybees is enhanced by caffeine, prompting speculation that pollination service could be enhanced. We directly tested caffeine’s effect on pollination service by allowing bumblebee colonies to feed on arrays of artificial flowers that offer nectar while also dispensing and receiving dye particles as pollen analogues. With caffeine levels signaled by flower color (blue, green, or yellow) in a factorial design, flowers offering nectar with 10−5 M caffeine received significantly more pollen analogue than did those with 10−4 M caffeine or with no caffeine. Effects of caffeine were unaffected by which colors were associated with which caffeine levels: Color alone had no significant effect, and there was no interaction between color and caffeine level. In cases where greater pollination service translates to increased fitness, we would expect stabilizing selection to maintain nectar caffeine at intermediate levels.

Keywords

Floral nectar Caffeine Pollination Bumblebee Artificial flower Secondary compound Addiction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Biobest for supplying bees, Nicholas Hoban for help with 3D printing, David F. Andrews and Bart Harvey for statistical advice, Alice Zhu for laboratory assistance, and Jessamyn Manson, Lars Chittka, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Adler LS (2000) The ecological significance of toxic nectar. Oikos 91:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler LS, Irwin RE (2012) Nectar alkaloids decrease pollination and female reproduction in a native plant. Oecologia 168:1033–1041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avarguès-Weber A, Chittka L (2014) Observational conditioning in flower choice copying by bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): influence of observer distance and demonstrator movement. PLoS One 9:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker HG, Baker I (1975) Studies of nectar constitution and pollinator-plant coevolution. In: Gilbert LE, Raven PH (eds) Coevolution of animals and plants. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 100–140Google Scholar
  5. Cartar RV (2004) Resource tracking by bumble bees: responses to plant-level differences in quality. Ecology 85:2764–2771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castellanos MC, Wilson PS, Wolfe A, Keller SA, Thomson JD (2006) Anther evolution: pollen presentation strategies when pollinators differ in efficiency. Am Nat 167:288–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cembrowski A, Tan MG, Thomson JD, Frederickson M (2013) Ants and ant scent reduce bumblebee pollination of artificial flowers. Am Nat 183:133–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chittka L, Peng F (2013) Caffeine boosts bees’ memories. Science 339:1157–1159Google Scholar
  9. Detzel A, Wink M (1993) Attraction, deterrence or intoxication of bees (Apis mellifera) by plant allelochemicals. Chemoecology 4:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dukas R (1995) Transfer and interference learning in bumble bees. Anim Behav 49:1481–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gegear R, Manson JS, Thomson JD (2007) Ecological context influences pollinator deterrence by alkaloids in floral nectar. Ecol Lett 10:378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagler J, Buchmann SL (1993) Honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) foraging responses to phenolic-rich nectars. J Kans Entomol Soc 66:223–230Google Scholar
  13. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kawaguchi LG, Ohashi K, Toquenaga Y (2007) Contrasting responses of bumble bees to feeding conspecifics on their familiar and unfamiliar flowers. Proc R Soc B 274:2661–2667PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Makino TT, Sakai S (2007) Experience changes pollinator responses top floral display size: from size-based to reward-based foraging. Funct Ecol 21:854–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manson JS, Cook D, Gardner DR, Irwin RE (2013a) Dose-dependent effects of nectar alklaloids in a montane plant-pollinator community. J Ecol 101:1604–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manson JS, Rasmann S, Halitsckhe R, Thomson JD, Agrawal AA (2013b) Cardenolides in nectar may be more a consequence of allocation to other plant parts: a phylogenetic study. Funct Ecol 26:1100–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Menzel R, Müller U (1996) Learning and memory in honeybees: from behaviour to neural substrates. Annu Rev Neurosci 19:379–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  20. Rhoades DF, Bergdahl JC (1981) Adaptive significance of toxic nectar. Am Nat 117:798–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Trillo A, Corcobado G (2013) Long term effects of aversive reinforcement on colour discrimination learning in free-flying bumblebees. PLoS One 8(8):e71551PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Singaravelan N, Ne’eman G, Inbar M, Izhaki I (2005) Feeding responses of free-flying honeybees to secondary compounds mimicking floral nectars. J Chem Ecol 31:2791–2804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomson JD (1988) Effects of variation in inflorescence size and floral rewards on the visitation rates of traplining pollinators of Aralia hispida. Evolut Ecol 2:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomson JD, Price MV, Waser NM, Stratton DA (1986) Comparative studies of pollen and fluorescent dye transport by bumble bees visiting Erythronium grandiflorum. Oecologia 69:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomson JD, Ogilvie JE, Makino TT, Arisz A, Raju S, Rojas-Luengas V, Tan MG (2012) Estimating pollination success with novel artificial flowers: effects of nectar concentration. J Pollinat Ecol 9:108–114Google Scholar
  26. Tiedeken EJ, Stout JC, Stevenson PC, Wright GA (2014) Bumblebees are not deterred by ecologically relevant concentrations of nectar toxins. J Exp Biol. doi: 10.1242/jeb.097543 published online 13 February 2014PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wright GA, Baker DD, Palmer MJ, Stabler D, Mustard JA, Power EF, Borland AM, Stevenson PC (2013) Caffeine in floral nectar enhances a pollinator’s memory of reward. Science 339:1202–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Thomson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Miruna A. Draguleasa
    • 1
  • Marcus Guorui Tan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Rocky Mountain Biological LaboratoryCrested ButteUSA

Personalised recommendations