Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 8, pp 1869–1875 | Cite as

Chemistry of a Mating Plug in Bumblebees

  • Boris Baer
  • Roland Maile
  • Paul Schmid-Hempel
  • E. David Morgan
  • Graeme R. Jones


In the bumblebee B. terrestris males transfer a mating plug into the queen's sexual tract shortly after sperm transfer. The plug is a sticky, opaque secretion of the male accessory gland. In order to clarify the meaning of the mating plug, we collected the plug substance directly from the male's accessory gland and identified the chemical substances present with gas chromatography. The main compounds found in the mating plug were four fatty acids (palmitic, linoleic, oleic, and stearic acids) and a cyclic peptide (cycloprolylproline). Mixing the four fatty acids resulted in a similar sticky, opaque mass as found in natural plugs, indicating that cycloprolylproline is not necessary for the physical attributes of the plug. The function of the fatty acids may therefore be to build up a physical barrier, optimizing sperm placement before the spermathecal duct or preventing sperm backflow. Cycloprolylproline, on the other hand, may influence female mating behavior so as to reduce her receptivity. In fact, peptides are known to reduce female receptivity in other insects. This would explain why queens of B. terrestris are only singly mated, although multiple mating is beneficial during the colony cycle with respect to parasitism and fitness.

Mating plug Bombus cycloprolylproline palmitic acid linoleic acid oleic acid stearic acid 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akino, T., and Yamaoka, R. 1996. Origin of oleic acid corpse recognition signal in the ant, Formica japonica Motschlsky (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 40:265–271.Google Scholar
  2. Baer, B., and Schmid-Hempel, P. 1999. Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumblebee. Nature 397:151–154.Google Scholar
  3. Boomsma, J. J., and Grafen, A. 1990. Intraspecific variation in ant sex ratios and the Trivers-Hare hypothesis. Evolution 44:1026–1034.Google Scholar
  4. Boomsma, J. J., and Ratnieks, F. L. W. 1996. Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. (B) 351:947–975.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, P. S., Stumm Zollinger, E., Aigaki, T., Balmer, J., Beinz, M., and Bohlen, P. 1988. A male accessory gland peptide that regulates reproductive behavior of female Drosophila melanogaster. Cell 54:291–298.Google Scholar
  6. Cruz Lopez, L., and Morgan, E. D. 1997. Explanation of bitter taste of venom of ponerine ant, Pachycondyla apicalis. J. Chem. Ecol. 23:705–712.Google Scholar
  7. Dani, F. R., Cannoni, S., Turillazzi, S., and Morgan, E. D. 1996. Ant repellent effect of the sternal gland secretion of Polistes dominulus (Christ) and P. sulcifer (Zimmermann). (Hymenoptera:Vespidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 22:37–48.Google Scholar
  8. Dickinson, J. L., and Rutowski, R. L. 1989. The function of the mating plug in the chalcedon checkerspot butterfly. Anim. Behav. 38:154–162.Google Scholar
  9. Duchateau, M. J., and Marien, J. 1995. Sexual biology of haploid and diploid males in the bumble bee Bombus terrestris. Insectes Soc. 42:255–266.Google Scholar
  10. Duvoisin, N., Baer, B., and Schmid-Hempel, P. 1999. Sperm transfer and male competition in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Anim. Behav. 58:743–749.Google Scholar
  11. Gillott, C. 1996. Male insect accessory glands: Functions and control of secretory activity. Invert. Reprod. Dev. 30:199–205.Google Scholar
  12. Gonzalez, A., Rossini, C., Eisener, M., and Eisener, T. 1999. Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96:5570–5574.Google Scholar
  13. Ishibashi, N., Kouge, K., Shinoda, I., Kanehisa, H., and Okai, H. 1988. A mechanism for bitter taste sensibility in peptides. Agric. Biol. Chem. 52:819–828.Google Scholar
  14. Keller, L., and Reeve, H. K. 1994. Genetic variability, queen number, and polyandry in social hymenoptera. Evolution 48:694–704.Google Scholar
  15. Lachmann, A. D. 1998. Sexual receptivity and post-emergence ovarian development in females of Coprocia vagans (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae). Physiol. Entomol. 23:360–368.Google Scholar
  16. Lockey, K. H. 1988. Lipids of the insect cuticle: Origin, composition and function. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 89B:595–645.Google Scholar
  17. Matoba, T., and Hata, T. 1972. Relationship between bitterness of peptides and their chemical structures. Agric. Biol. Chem. 36:1432–1431.Google Scholar
  18. Monnin, T., and Peeters, C. 1998. Monogyny and regulation and regulation of worker mating in the queenless ant Dinoponera quadriceps. Anim. Behav. 55:299–306.Google Scholar
  19. Polak, M., Starmer William, T., and Barker, J. S. F. 1998. A mating plug and male mate choice in Drosophila hibisci Bock. Anim. Behav. 56:919–926.Google Scholar
  20. Price, C. S., Dyer, K. A., and Coyne, J. A. 1999. Sperm competition between Drosophila males involves both displacement and incapacitation. Nature 400:449–452.Google Scholar
  21. Schmid-Hempel, R., and Schmid-Hempel, P. 2000. Female mating frequencies in social insects: Bombus spp. from Central Europe. Insectes Soc. 47:36–41.Google Scholar
  22. Soller, M., Bownes, M., and Kubli, E. 1997. Mating and sex peptide stimulate the accumulation of yolk in oocytes of Drosophila melanogaster. Eur. J. Biochem. 243:732–738.Google Scholar
  23. Wolfner, M. F. 1997. Tokens of love: Functions and regulation of Drosophila male accessory gland products. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 27:179–192.Google Scholar
  24. Woyciechowski, M., Kabat, L., and Krol, E. 1994. The function of the mating sign in honey bees, Apis mellifera L.: New evidence. Anim. Behav. 47:733–735.Google Scholar
  25. Yi Shu, X., and Gillott, C. 1999. Purification and characterization of an oviposition-stimulating protein of the long hyaline tubules in the male migratory grasshopper, Melanoplus sanguinipes. J. Insect. Physiol. 45:143–150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Baer
    • 1
  • Roland Maile
    • 2
  • Paul Schmid-Hempel
    • 3
  • E. David Morgan
    • 2
  • Graeme R. Jones
    • 2
  1. 1.Experimental Ecology, ETH-Zentrum NWETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Chemistry Department, KeeleKeele UniversityStaffordshireEngland
  3. 3.Experimental Ecology, ETH-Zentrum NWETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations