Asian hive bees, Apis cerana, modulate dance communication in response to nectar toxicity and demand

Tan, Ken; Wang, Zhengwei; Yang, Mingxian; Fuchs, Stefan; Luo, Linjuan; Zhang, Zuyun; Li, Hua; Zhuang, Di; Yang, Shuang; Tautz, Juergen; Beekman, Madeleine; Oldroyd, Benjamin P.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.037

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their complex communication is therefore more likely to prevent direct honeybee mortality from R. ponticum nectar consumption (Afik, Dag & Shafir ; Tan et al . ). In contrast, independently foraging solitary bees may be more vulnerable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Honeybees are not seen foraging on R. ponticum in its introduced range (Stout et al 2006;Stout 2007a), presumably because they do not recruit nest-mates due to its toxic effects. Their complex communication is therefore more likely to prevent direct honeybee mortality from R. ponticum nectar consumption (Afik, Dag & Shafir 2008;Tan et al 2012). In contrast, independently foraging solitary bees may be more vulnerable.…”

Section: M P a C T S O F I N V A S I V E P L A N T S O N P O L L I mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nectar chemistry modulates the impact of an invasive plant on native pollinators

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.Invasive species are considered a main driver of pollinator declines, yet the direct effects of invasive alien plants on pollinators are poorly understood. 2. Abundant, invasive plant species can provide a copious nectar resource for native pollinators. However, the nectar of some plants contains secondary compounds, usually associated with defence against herbivores. The impacts of these compounds on pollinators are often unknown. 3. We compared how consumption of grayanotoxin I and III, natural secondary compounds in the nectar of invasive Rhododendron ponticum L., affected three native bee species: a honeybee, (Apis mellifera L.), a solitary mining bee (Andrena carantonica, P erez) and a bumblebee, (Bombus terrestris, L.). 4. Survival of the solitary bee and the bumblebee species was not affected by either grayanotoxin, but honeybees were $ 209 more likely to die when fed solutions containing grayanotoxin I. Furthermore, solitary bees were deterred from feeding and exhibited malaise behaviours indicative of sublethal toxicity in response to consumption of grayanotoxin I. In contrast, grayanotoxins did not affect bumblebee survival or behaviour, even when bees were subjected to multiple stressors (parasite infection or food stress). 5. Our experiments suggest that while R. ponticum provides abundant floral nectar, it is only available as a food resource to pollinators that tolerate grayanotoxins. Pollinators whose health is negatively affected by grayanotoxins may experience negative impacts from R. ponticum invasion directly (if they consume R. ponticum nectar) or indirectly (if native floral resources are replaced by R. ponticum). 6. Our study makes a novel comparison of the effects of a natural nectar secondary compound on three pollinator species and clearly demonstrates drastic variation in the responses of different key pollinator taxa to a nectar toxin. Our findings are thus in congruence with literature demonstrating the varying effects of invasive plant chemistry on native foliar herbivores, and our work demonstrates that nectar chemistry should be taken into account when determining the impacts of plant invasion for native pollinators.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: M P a C T S O F I N V A S I V E P L A N T S O N P O L L I mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nectar chemistry modulates the impact of an invasive plant on native pollinators

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that legitimate pollinators such as bumblebees have therefore selected for concentrations of toxins in floral nectar that remain below their deterrence level (Wright et al, 2013). For example, if a honeybee learns to associate floral traits with bad-tasting nectar, it will avoid flowers with these traits (Wright et al, 2010) and will potentially communicate the poor quality of the nectar to other colony members or not recruit them to this food source (Tan et al, 2012). In this way, individual bees could drive natural selection towards concentrations of these compounds in nectar that are below their deterrence threshold (Wright et al, 2013;Wright et al, 2010).…”

Section: Functional Significance Of Nectar Toxinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bumblebees are not deterred by ecologically relevant concentrations of nectar toxins

Tiedeken

Stout

Stevenson

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees visit flowers to collect nectar and pollen that contain nutrients and simultaneously facilitate plant sexual reproduction. Paradoxically, nectar produced to attract pollinators often contains deterrent or toxic plant compounds associated with herbivore defence. The functional significance of these nectar toxins is not fully understood, but they may have a negative impact on pollinator behaviour and health, and, ultimately, plant pollination. This study investigates whether a generalist bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, can detect naturally occurring concentrations of nectar toxins. Using paired-choice experiments, we identified deterrence thresholds for five compounds found in the nectar of bee-pollinated plants: quinine, caffeine, nicotine, amygdalin and grayanotoxin. The deterrence threshold was determined when bumblebees significantly preferred a sucrose solution over a sucrose solution containing the compound. Bumblebees had the lowest deterrence threshold for the alkaloid quinine (0.01 mmol l ); all other compounds had higher deterrence thresholds, above the natural concentration range in floral nectar. Our data, combined with previous work using honeybees, suggest that generalist bee species have poor acuity for the detection of nectar toxins. The fact that bees do not avoid nectar-relevant concentrations of these compounds likely indicates that it is difficult for them to learn to associate floral traits with the presence of toxins, thus maintaining this trait in plant populations.

show abstract

“…Tripterygium species are insect pollinated (Roubik, 1995), and, although little is known about their pollination biology, their flowers are frequently and regularly visited by honey bees (largely A. cerana) (Tan et al, 2007), Diptera, solitary wasps and ants (K.T., unpublished) when other floral resources are less available. Apis cerana normally avoids feeding on T. hypoglaucum honey (Tan et al, 2007), and decrease waggle dancing and recruitment for T. hypoglaucum honey (Tan et al, 2012). However, T. hypoglaucum blooms from May to June when there are few alternative food sources for A. cerana in many areas (Tan et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reluctant visitor: an alkaloid in toxic nectar can reduce olfactory learning and memory in Asian honey bees

Wang

Wen

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nectar of the thunder god vine, , contains a terpenoid, triptolide (TRP), that may be toxic to the sympatric Asian honey bee,, because honey produced from this nectar is toxic to bees. However, these bees will forage on, recruit for, and pollinate this plant during a seasonal dearth of preferred food sources. Olfactory learning plays a key role in forager constancy and pollination, and we therefore tested the effects of acute and chronic TRP feeding on forager olfactory learning, using proboscis extension reflex conditioning. At concentrations of 0.5-10 µg TRP ml, there were no learning effects of acute exposure. However, memory retention (1 h after the last learning trial) significantly decreased by 56% following acute consumption of 0.5 µg TRP ml Chronic exposure did not alter learning or memory, except at high concentrations (5 and 10 µg TRP ml). TRP concentrations in nectar may therefore not significantly harm plant pollination. Surprisingly, TRP slightly increased bee survival, and thus other components in honey may be toxic. Long-term exposure to TRP could have colony effects but these may be ameliorated by the bees' aversion to nectar when other food sources are available and, perhaps, by detoxification mechanisms. The co-evolution of this plant and its reluctant visitor may therefore likely illustrate a classic compromise between the interests of both actors.

show abstract

Asian hive bees, Apis cerana, modulate dance communication in response to nectar toxicity and demand

Cited by 26 publications

References 23 publications

Nectar chemistry modulates the impact of an invasive plant on native pollinators

Nectar chemistry modulates the impact of an invasive plant on native pollinators

Bumblebees are not deterred by ecologically relevant concentrations of nectar toxins

The reluctant visitor: an alkaloid in toxic nectar can reduce olfactory learning and memory in Asian honey bees

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About