Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 5, pp 811–821 | Cite as

Population differentiation in female sex pheromone and male preferences in a solitary bee

  • Nicolas J. Vereecken
  • Jim Mant
  • Florian P. Schiestl
Original Article

Abstract

Population differentiation in female mating signals and associated male preferences can drive reproductive isolation among segregated populations. We tested this assumption by investigating intraspecific variation in female sex pheromone and associated male odour preferences among distant populations in the solitary bee Colletes cunicularius (L.) by using quantitative gas chromatography and by performing field bioassays with synthetic blends of key sex pheromone compounds. We found significant differences in sex pheromone blends among the bee populations, and the divergence in odour blends correlated positively with geographic distance, suggesting that genetic divergence among distant populations can affect sex pheromone chemistry. Our behavioural experiments, however, demonstrate that synthetic copies of allopatric female sex pheromones were cross-attractive to patrolling males from distant populations, making reproductive isolation by non-recognition of mating signals among populations unlikely. Our data also show that patrolling male bees from different populations preferred odour types from allopatric populations at the two sites of bioassays. These male preferences are not expected to select for changes in the female sex pheromone, but may influence the evolution of floral odour in sexually deceptive orchids of the genus Ophrys that are pollinated by C. cunicularius males.

Keywords

Colletes cunicularius Population differentiation Odour preferences Ophrys orchids Pollination by sexual deception 

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Monographs in behaviour and ecology. Princeton University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonovics J (1971) The effects of a heterogeneous environment on the genetics of natural populations. Am Sci 59:593–599PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayasse M, Dutzler G (1998) The function of pheromones in the mating biology of Osmia bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Social insects at the turn of the millenium. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress IUSSI, Adelaide, Australia. Flinders University Press, p 42Google Scholar
  4. Ayasse M, Engels W, Lübke G, Taghizadeh T, Francke W (1999) Mating expenditures reduced via female sex pheromone modulation in the primitively eusocial halictine bee, Lasioglossum (Evylaeus) malachurum (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayasse M, Dutzler G, Schiestl FP, Ibarra F, Francke W (2000) Identification of female and male sex pheromone in the solitary bee Osmia rufa (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). International Congress of Entomology, Chemistry and Physiological Ecology Symposium and Poster Session, Brazil, Abstract Book II, p 21Google Scholar
  6. Ayasse M, Paxton R, Tengö J (2001) Mating behaviour and chemical communication in the order Hymenoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 46:31–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergström G, Tengö J (1978) Linalool in mandibular gland secretion of Colletes bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). J Chem Ecol 4:447–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boake CRB (2002) Sexual signaling and speciation, a microevolutionary perspective. Genetica 116:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borg-Karlson A-K, Tengö J, Valterova I, Unelius CR, Taghizadeh T, Tolasch T, Francke W (2003) (S)-(+)-linalool, a mate attractant pheromone component in the bee Colletes cunicularius. J Chem Ecol 29:1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boughman JW (2002) How sensory drive can promote speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 17:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brosius F (2002) SPSS Version 11. Mitp-Verlag, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cane JH, Tengö J (1981) Pheromonal cues direct mate seeking behaviour of male Colletes cunicularius (Hymenoptera, Colletidae). J Chem Ecol 7:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke FM, Faulkes CG (1999) Kin discrimination and female mate choice in the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1995–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dapporto L, Palagi E, Turillazzi S (2004) Cuticular hydrocarbons of Polistes dominulus as a biogeographic tool: a study of populations from the Tuscan Archipelago and surrounding areas. J Chem Ecol 30:2139–2151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dettner K, Liepert C (1994) Chemical mimicry and camouflage. Annu Rev Entomol 39:129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eickwort GC, Ginsberg HS (1980) Foraging and mating behaviour in Apoidea. Annu Rev Entomol 25:421–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etges WJ (1992) Premating isolation is determined by larval substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. Evolution 46:1945–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etges WJ, Ahrens MA (2001) Premating isolation is determined by larval rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. V. Deep geographic variation in epicuticular hydrocarbons among isolated populations. Am Nat 158:585–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Gathmann A, Tscharntke T (2002) Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 71:757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansson BS, Toth M, Löfstedt C, Szöcs G, Subchev M, Löfqvist J (1990) Pheromone variation among eastern European and a western Asian population of the turnip moth Agrotis segetum. J Chem Ecol 16:1611–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedrick PW, Ginevan ME, Ewing EP (1976) Genetic polymorphism in heterogeneous environments. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 7:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jallon J-M, David JR (1987) Variations in cuticular hydrocarbons among the eight species of the Drosophila melaonogaster subgroup. Evolution 41:294–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan DS (1905) The origin of species through isolation. Science 22:545–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kawazu K, Hasegawa J-I, Honda H, Ishikawa Y, Wakamura S, Sugie H, Kamiwada H, Kamimuro T, Yoshiyasu Y, Tatsuki S (2000) Geographical variation in female sex pheromones of the rice leaffolder moth, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis: identification of pheromone components in Japan. Entomol Exp Appl 96:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klun JA, Anglade PL, Baca F, Chapman OL, Chiang HC, Danielson DM, Faber W, Fels P, Hill RE, Hudon M, Kania CS, Keaster AJ et al (1975) Insect sex pheromones: intraspecific pheromone variability of Ostrinia nubilalis in North America and Europe. Environ Entomol 4:891–894Google Scholar
  28. Knudsen JT, Gershenzon J (2006) The chemical diversity of floral scent. In: Dudareva NA, Pichersky E (eds) Biology of floral scent. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, USA, pp 27–52Google Scholar
  29. Knudsen JT, Tollsten L, Bergström LG (1993) Floral scents—a checklist of volatile compounds isolated by head-space techniques. Phytochemistry 33:253–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koepfer HR (1987a) Selection for sexual isolation between geographic forms of Drosophila mojavensis. I. Interactions between the selected forms. Evolution 41:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koepfer HR (1987b) Selection for sexual isolation between geographic forms of Drosophila mojavensis. II. Effects of selection on mating preference and propensity. Evolution 41:1409–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krebs RA, Markow TA (1989) Courtship behaviour and control of reproductive isolation in Drosophila mojavensis. Evolution 43:908–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721–3725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larsen O, Gleffe G, Tengö J (1986) Vibration and sound communication in solitary bees and wasps. Physiol Entomol 11:287–296Google Scholar
  35. Larsson FK, Tengö J (1989) The effects of temperature and body size on the mating pattern of a gregariously nesting bee, Colletes cunicularius (Hymenoptera: Colletidae). Ecol Entomol 14:279–286Google Scholar
  36. Liang D, Silverman J (2000) “You are what you eat”: diet modifies cuticular hydrocarbons and nestmate recognition in the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. Naturwissenschaften 87:412–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Löfstedt C (1993) Moth pheromone genetics and evolution. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 340:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Löfstedt C, Löfqvist J, Lanne BS, Van Der Pers JNC, Hansson BS (1986) Pheromone dialects in European turnip moths Agrotis segetum. Oikos 46:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mader D (1999) Geologische und biologische Entomoökologie der rezenten Seidenbiene Colletes. Logabook, KölnGoogle Scholar
  40. Mant JG, Brändli C, Vereecken NJ, Schulz CM, Francke W, Schiestl FP (2005a) Cuticular hydrocarbons as sex pheromone in Colletes cunicularius (Hymenoptera: Colletidae) and the key to its mimicry by the sexually deceptive orchid Ophrys exaltata (Orchidaceae). J Chem Ecol 31:1765–1787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mant JG, Peakall R, Schiestl FP (2005b) Does selection on floral odor promote differentiation among populations and species of the sexually deceptive orchid genus Ophrys? Evolution 59:1449–1463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Markow TA (1991) Sexual isolation among populations of Drosophila mojavensis. Evolution 45:1525–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Markow TA, Toolson EC (1990) Temperature effects on epicuticular hydrocarbons and sexual isolation in Drosophila mojavensis. In: Barker JSF, Starmer WT, MacIntyre RJ (eds) Ecological and evolutionary genetics of Drosophila. Monographs in evolutionary biology. Plenum, New York, pp 315–331Google Scholar
  45. Maynard Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. McElfresh JS, Millar JG (2001) Geographic variation in the pheromone system of the saturniid moth Hemileuca eglanterina. Ecology 82:3505–3518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Michener CD (1974) The social behaviour of the bees. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller JR, Roelofs WL (1980) Individual variation in sex pheromone component ratios in two populations of the redbanded leafroller moth, Argyrotaenia velutinana. Environ Entomol 9:359–363Google Scholar
  49. Noskiewicz J (1936) Die Palearktischen Colletes–Arten. Prace Naukowe, LwowieGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Toole C (1994) Who cares for solitary bees? In: Matheson A (ed) Forage for bees in an agricultural landscape. International Bee Research Association, Cardiff, pp 47–56Google Scholar
  51. Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T (2001) Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paterson HEH (1985) The recognition concept of species. In: Vrba ES (ed) Species and speciation. Transvaal Museum Monograph No.4, Pretoria, pp 21–29Google Scholar
  53. Peakall R, Schiestl FP (2004) A mark-recapture study of male Colletes cunicularius bees: implications for pollination by sexual deception. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:579–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2005a) GenAlEx 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Available online at http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/GenAlEx/
  55. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2005b) GenAlEx 6: genetic analysis in excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Potts WK, Wakeland EK (1993) Evolution of MHC genetic diversity—a tale of incest, pestilence and sexual preference. Trends Genet 9:408–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Raguso RA, Pichersky E (1999) A day in the life of the linalool molecule: chemical communication in a plant-pollinator system. Part 1: linalool biosynthesis in flowering plants. Plant Species Biol 14:95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roelofs WL, Liu W, Hao G, Jiao H, Rooney AP, Linn CE Jr (2002) Evolution of moth sex pheromones via ancestral genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:13621–13626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schiestl FP (2004) Floral evolution and pollinator mate choice in a sexually deceptive orchid. J Evol Biol 17:67–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schiestl FP (2005) On the success of a swindle: pollination by deception in orchids. Naturwissenschaften 92:255–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schiestl FP, Ayasse M (2000) Post-mating odour in females of the solitary bee, Andrena nigroaenea (Apoidea, Andrenidae), inhibits male mating behaviour. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Simmons LW (1989) Kin recognition and its influence on mating preferences of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (Degeer). Anim Behav 38:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simpson BB, Neff JL (1981) Floral rewards: alternative to pollen and nectar. Ann Mo Bot Gard 68:301–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith BH, Ayasse M (1987) Kin-based male mating preferences in two species of halictine bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith BH, Breed MD (1995) The chemical basis for nest-mate recognition and mate discrimination in social insects. In: Cardé RT, Bell WJ (eds) Chemical ecology of insects 2. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 287–317Google Scholar
  67. Stennett MD, Etges WJ (1997) Pre-mating isolation is determined by larval rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. III. Epicuticular hydrocarbon variation is determined by use of different host plants in Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae. J Chem Ecol 23:2803–2824Google Scholar
  68. Stowe MK (1988) Chemical mimicry. In: Spencer KC (ed) Chemical mediation of coevolution. Academic, London, pp 513–580Google Scholar
  69. Toth M, Löfstedt C, Blair BW, Cabello T, Farag AI, Hansson BS, Kovalev BG, Maini S, Nesterov EA, Pajor I, Sazanov AP, Shamshev IV, Subchev M, Szöcs G (1992) Attraction of male turnip moths Agrotis segetum (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to sex pheromone components and their mixtures at 11 sites in Europe, Asia, and Africa. J Chem Ecol 18:1337–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tscharntke T, Brandl R (2004) Plant-insect interactions in fragmented landscapes. Annu Rev Entomol 49:405–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Turner JRG (1988) The evolution of mimicry: a solution to the problem of punctuated equilibrium. In: Brower LP (ed) Mimicry and the evolutionary process. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 42–66Google Scholar
  72. Watts PC, Hamilton JGC, Ward RD, Noyes HA, Souza NA, Kemp SJ, Feliciangeli D, Brazil R, Maingon RDC (2005) Male sex pheromones and the phylogeographic structure of the Lutzomyia longipalpis species complex (Diptera: Psychodidae) from Brazil and Venezuela. Am J Trop Med Hyg 73(4):734–743PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Wcislo WT (1992) Attraction and learning in mate-finding by solitary bees, Lasioglossum (Dialictus) figueresi Wcislo and Nomia triangulifera Vachal (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. West-Eberhard MJ (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q Rev Biol 58:155–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wong BBM, Keogh JS, Jennions MD (2004) Mate recognition in a freshwater fish: geographical distance, genetic differentiation, and variation in female preference for local over foreign males. J Evol Biol 17:701–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114–138PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas J. Vereecken
    • 1
  • Jim Mant
    • 2
  • Florian P. Schiestl
    • 2
  1. 1.Behavioural and Evolutionary EcologyFree University of Brussels CP 160/12BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Plant Ecological GeneticsInstitute for Integrative BiologyZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations