Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 2897–2911 | Cite as

Identity and Function of Scent Marks Deposited by Foraging Bumblebees

  • Dave Goulson
  • Jane C. Stout
  • John Langley
  • William O. H. Hughes
Article

Abstract

Foraging bumblebees can detect scents left on flowers by previous bumblebee visitors and hence avoid flowers that have been depleted of nectar. Tarsal secretions are probably responsible for this repellent effect. The chemical components of the tarsal glands were analyzed by combined gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for three species of bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, B. lapidarius, and B. pascuorum. The hydrocarbons identified were similar for each species, although there were interspecific differences in the relative amounts of each compound present. The tarsal extracts of all three species comprised complex mixtures of long-chain alkanes and alkenes with between 21 and 29 carbon atoms. When B. terrestris tarsal extracts were applied to flowers and offered to foraging bumblebees of the three species, each exhibited a similar response; concentrated solutions produced a repellent effect, which decreased as the concentration declined. We bioassayed synthetic tricosane (one of the compounds found in the tarsal extracts) at a range of doses to determine whether it gave a similar response. Doses ≥ 10−12 ng/flower resulted in rejection by foraging B. lapidarius. Only when ≤ 10−14 ng was applied did the repellent effect fade. We bioassayed four other synthetic compounds found in tarsal extracts and a mixture of all five compounds to determine which were important in inducing a repellent effect in B. lapidarius workers. All induced repellency but the strength of the response varied; heneicosane was most repellent while tricosene was least repellent. These findings are discussed in relation to previous studies that found that tarsal scent marks were attractive rather than repellent.

Bombus Apidae Hymenoptera tarsal gland secretions foraging behavior repellency n-heneicosane n-tricosane (Z)-9-tricosene n-pentacosane n-heptacosane 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. BergstrÈm, G., Svensson, B. G., Appelgren, M., and Groth, I. 1981. Complexity of bumblebee marking pheromones: biochemical, ecological and systematical interpretations, pp. 175–183, in P. E. Howse and J. L. Clement (eds.). Biosystematics of Social Insects, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  2. Blum, M. S. 1981. Chemical Defenses of Arthropods. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Blum, M. S. 1987. Specificity of pheromonal signals: a search for its recognitive bases in terms of a unified chemisociality, pp. 401–405, in J. Eder and H. Rembold (eds.). Chemistry and Biology of Social Insects. J. Peperny, MÜnchen.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, S. A. 1981. Chemical signals in bumblebee foraging. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9:257–260.Google Scholar
  5. Corbet, S. A., Willmer, P. G., Beament, J. W. L., Unwin, D. M., and Prys-jones, O. E. 1979. Post-secretory determinants of sugar concentration in nectar. Plant Cell. Environ. 2:293–308.Google Scholar
  6. Corbet, S. A., Kerslake, C. J. C., Brown, D., and Morland, N. E. 1984. Can bees select nectarrich flowers in a patch? J. Apic. Res. 23:234–242.Google Scholar
  7. Crane, E. 1975. Honey: A Comprehensive Survey. Heinemann in cooperation with International Bee Research Association, London.Google Scholar
  8. Crawley, M. J. 1991. GLIM for Ecologists. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Duffield, G. E., Gibson, R. C., Gilhooly, P. M., Hesse, A. J., Inkley, C. R., Gilbert, F. S., and Barnard, C. J. 1993. Choice of flowers by foraging honey-bees (Apis mellifera)-possible morphological cues. Ecol. Entomol. 18:191–197.Google Scholar
  10. Dukas, R., and Real, L. A. 1993. Effects of nectar variance on learning by bumblebees. Anim. Behav. 45:37–41.Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson, A. W., and Free, J. B. 1979. Production of forage-marking pheromone by the honeybee. J. Apic. Res. 18:128–135.Google Scholar
  12. Frankie, G., and Vinson, S. B. 1977. Scent-marking of passion flowers in Texas by females of Xylocopa virginica texana (Hym. Anthophoridae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 50:613–625.Google Scholar
  13. Free, J. B., and Williams, I. H. 1972. The role of the Nasanov gland pheromone in crop communication by honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behaviour 41:314–318.Google Scholar
  14. Free, J. B., and Williams, I. H. 1983. Scent-marking of flowers by honeybees. J. Apic. Res. 18:128–135.Google Scholar
  15. Free, J. B., Williams, I., Pickett, J. A., Ferguson, A. W., and Martin, A. P. 1982a. Attractiveness of (Z)-11-eicosen-1-ol to foraging honeybees. J. Apic. Res. 21:151–156.Google Scholar
  16. Free, J. B., Ferguson, A. W., Pickett, J. A., and Williams, I. H. 1982b. Use of unpurified Nasonov pheromone components to attract clustering honeybees. J. Apic. Res. 21:26–29.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Giurfa, M., and Núñez, J. A. 1992. Honeybees mark with scent and reject recently visited flowers. Oecologia 89:113–117.Google Scholar
  19. Giurfa, M., Núñez, J. A., and Backhaus, W. 1994. Odour and colour information in the foraging choice behavior of the honeybee. J. Comp. Physiol. 175:773–779.Google Scholar
  20. Goulson, D., Hawson, S. A., and Stout, J. C. 1998. Foraging bumblebees avoid flowers already visited by conspecifics or by other bumblebee species. Anim. Behav. 55:199–206.Google Scholar
  21. Heinrich, B. 1979. Resource heterogeneity and patterns of movement in foraging bumblebees. Oecologia 40:235–245.Google Scholar
  22. Holm, S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6:65–70.Google Scholar
  23. Kato, M. 1988. Bumble bee visits to Impatiens spp.: Pattern and efficiency. Oecologia 76:364–370.Google Scholar
  24. Kevan, P. G. 1976. Fluorescent nectar (technical comment). Science 194:341–342.Google Scholar
  25. Lockey, K. H. 1980. Insect cuticular hydrocarbons. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 65B:457–462.Google Scholar
  26. Marden, J. H. 1984. Remote perception of floral nectar by bumblebee. Oecologia 64:232–240.Google Scholar
  27. Menzel, R., and MÜller, U. 1996. Learning and memory in honeybees: from behaviour to neural substrates. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 19:379–404.Google Scholar
  28. NÚÑez, J. A. 1967. Sammelbienen markieren versiegte Futterquellen durch Duft. Naturwissenschaften 54:322–323.Google Scholar
  29. Oldham, N. J., Billen, J., and Morgan, E. D. 1994. On the similarity of Dufour gland secretion and their cuticular hydrocarbons of some bumblebees. Physiol. Entomol. 19:115–123.Google Scholar
  30. Schmitt, U. 1990. Hydrocarbons in tarsal glands of Bombus terrestris. Experientia 46:1080–1082.Google Scholar
  31. Schmitt, U., and Bertsch, A. 1990. Do foraging bumblebees scent-mark food sources and does it matter? Oecologia 82:137–144.Google Scholar
  32. Schmitt, U., LÜbke, G., and Franke, W. 1991. Tarsal secretion marks food sources in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Chemoecology 2:35–40.Google Scholar
  33. Stout, J. C., Goulson, D., and Allen, J. A. 1998. Repellent scent marking of flowers by a guild of foraging bumblebees (Bombus spp.). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 43:317–326.Google Scholar
  34. TengÖ, J., Hefetz, A., Bertsch, A., Schmitt, U., LÜbke, G., and Francke, W. 1991. Species specificity and complexity of Dufour's gland secretion of bumble bees. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 99B:641–646.Google Scholar
  35. Thorp, R. N., Briggs, D. L., Estes, J. R., and Erikson, E. H. 1975. Nectar fluorescence under ultraviolet irradiation. Science 189:476–478.Google Scholar
  36. Thorp, R. N., Briggs, D. L., Estes, J. R., and Erikson, E. H. 1976. [Reply to Kevan (1976)]. Science 194:342.Google Scholar
  37. Vallet, A., Cassier, P., and Lensky, Y. 1991. Ontogeny of the fine structure of the mandibular glands of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) workers and the pheromonal activity of 2-heptanone. J. Insect Physiol. 37:789–804.Google Scholar
  38. Von Frisch, K. 1923. Ubie die “Sprache” der Beinen, eine tierpsychologische Untersuchung. Zool. Jahrb. Ab. All. Zool. Physiol. 40:1–186.Google Scholar
  39. Wetherwax, P. B. 1986. Why do honeybees reject certain flowers? Oecologia 69:567–570.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, A. A., Hollands, T. A., and Tucknott, O. G. 1981. The gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric examination of the volatiles produced by the fermentation of a sucrose solution. Z. Lebensm. Forsch. 172:377–381.Google Scholar
  41. Williams, C. S. 1998. The identity of the previous visitor influences flower rejection by nectarcollecting bees. Anim. Behav. 56:673–681.Google Scholar
  42. Zimmerman, M. 1982. Optimal foraging: random movement by pollen collecting bumblebees. Oecologia 53:394–398.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Goulson
    • 1
  • Jane C. Stout
    • 2
  • John Langley
    • 3
  • William O. H. Hughes
    • 2
  1. 1.Biodiversity and Ecology Division, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Biodiversity and Ecology Division, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations