Abstract
To forage effectively amongst flowers, some bee species utilize olfactory cues left by previous visitors in addition to direct assessment of visual cues to identify rewarding flowers. This ability can be more advantageous if the bees can recognize and use scent marks left by heterospecifics, not just marks left by members of their own species. We conducted field experiments to investigate whether the sweat bee Halictus aerarius avoids visiting flowers of trailing water willow Justicia procumbens emptied by other bee species. We found that H. aerarius rejected the flowers visited by both heterospecifics and conspecifics. They also rejected visited flowers artificially replenished with nectar. Our results demonstrate that social bees outside the Apidae can detect marks left on flowers by heterospecifics but that (on this plant species) they are unable to discriminate against flowers by directly detecting nectar volume. H. aerarius exhibited different rejection rates according to the identity of the previous bee species. We suggest that the frequency of rejection responses may depend on the amount of chemical substances left by the previous bee. In general, the use of scent marks left by previous visitors is almost certainly advantageous, enabling foragers to avoid flowers with depleted nectar levels and thereby improving their foraging efficiency.
References
Aguilar I, Sommeijer M (2001) The deposition of anal excretions by Melipona favosa foragers (Apidae: Meliponinae): behavioural observations concerning the location of food sources. Apidologie 32:37–48
Cameron SA (1981) Chemical signal in bumble bee foraging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:257–260
Eltz T (2006) Tracing pollinator footprints on natural flowers. J Chem Ecol 32:907–915
Frankie G, Vinson SB (1977) Scent marking of passion flowers in Texas by females of Xylocopa virginica texana (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). J Kans Entomol Soc 50:613–625
Free JB, Williams IH (1979) Communication by pheromones and other means in Apis florae colonies. J Apic Res 18:16–25
Free JB, Williams IH (1983) Scent-marking of flowers by honeybees. J Apic Res 22:86–90
Gawleta N, Zimmermann Y, Eltz T (2005) Repellent foraging recognition across bee families. Apidologie 36:325–330
Gilbert F, Azmeh S, Barnard C, Behnke J, Collins SA, Hurst J, Shuker D (2001) Individually recognizable scent marks on flowers made by a solitary bee. Anim Behav 61:217–229
Giurfa M (1993) The repellent scent-mark of the honeybee Apis mellifera ligustica and its role as communication cue during foraging. Insect Soc 40:59–67
Giurfa M, Núñez JA (1993) Visual modulation of a scent-marking activity in the honeybee, Apis mellifera L. Naturwissenschaften 80:376–379
Giurfa NM, Núñez JA, Backhaus W (1994) Odour and colour information in the honeybee, Apis mellifera L. J Comp Physiol 175:773–77
Goulson D, Hawson SA, Stout JC (1998) Foraging bumblebees avoid flowers already visited by conspecifics or by other bumblebee species. Anim Behav 55:199–206
Goulson D, Stout JC, Langley J, Hughes WOH (2000) Identity and function of scent marks deposited by foraging bumblebees. J Chem Ecol 26:2897–2911
Goulson D, Chapman JW, Hughes WOH (2001) Discrimination of unrewarding flowers by bees: direct detection of rewards and use of repellent scent marks. J Insect Behav 14:669–677
Jarau S, Hrncir M, Ayasse M, Schulz C, Francke W, Zucchi R, Barth FG (2004) A stingless bee (Melipona seminigra) marks food sources with a pheromone from its claw retractor tendons. J Chem Ecol 30:793–804
Jarau S, Hrncir M, Zucchi R, Barth FG (2005) Morphology and structure of the tarsal glands of the stingless bee Melipona seminigra. Naturwissenschaften 92:147–150
Lockey KH (1980) Insect cuticular hydrocarbons. Comp Biochem Physiol B 65:457–462
Nieh JC, Ramírez S, Nogueira-Neto P (2003) Multi-source odor-marking of food by a stingless bee, Melipona mandacaia. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:578–586
Nieh JC, Barreto LS, Contrera FAL, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL (2004) Olfactory eavesdropping by a competitively foraging stingless bee, Trigona spinipes. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1633–1640
Reader T, MacLeod I, Elliott PT, Robinson OJ, Manica A (2005) Inter-order interactions between flower-visiting insects: foraging bees avoid flowers previously visited by hoverflies. J Insect Behav 18:51–57
Saleh N, Chittka L (2006) The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:215–220
Sasaki Y (1985) Studies on the social structure of Halictus (Seladonia) aerarius (Smith) (Hymenoptera, Apoidae). Dissertation. Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Schmidt VM, Zucchi R, Barth FG (2005) Scent marks left by Nannotrigona testaceicornis at the feeding site: cues rather than signals. Apidologie 36:285–291
Schmitt U, Bertsch A (1990) Do foraging bumblebees scent-mark food sources and does it matter? Oecologia 82:137–144
Schmitt U, Lübke G, Francke W (1991) Tarsal secretion marks food sources in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Chemoecology 2:35–40
Stout JC, Goulson D (2001) The use of conspecific and interspecific scent marks by foraging bumblebees and honeybees. Anim Behav 62:183–189
Stout JC, Goulson D (2002) The influence of nectar secretion rates on the responses of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) to previously visited flowers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:239–246
Williams CS (1998) The identity of the previous visitor influences flower rejection by nectar-collecting bees. Anim Behav 56:673–681
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to B. Darvill, T. Nishida and members of our laboratory for helpful comments and criticisms to the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the 21st century COE program for Innovative Food and Environmental Studies Pioneered by Entomomimetic Sciences, from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yokoi, T., Goulson, D. & Fujisaki, K. The use of heterospecific scent marks by the sweat bee Halictus aerarius . Naturwissenschaften 94, 1021–1024 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-007-0285-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-007-0285-4