Mouthpart conduit sizes of fluid-feeding insects determine the ability to feed from pores

Lehnert, Matthew S.; Bennett, Andrew; Reiter, Kristen E.; Gerard, Patrick D.; Wei, Qi‐Huo; Byler, Miranda; Yan, Hui‐Juan; Lee, Wah-Keat

doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2026

Cited by 21 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The process of fluid uptake takes advantage of the hierarchical organization of the proboscis-interlegular spaces pull fluids from liquid sources into the food canal by capillary action, and a sucking pump in the head generates a pressure differential to transport those fluids along the food canal to the gut (Lehnert et al, 2017;Monaenkova et al, 2012;Tsai et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical adaptations of butterfly proboscises enable feeding from narrow floral tubes

Lehnert

Johnson

Wu³

et al. 2021

Functional Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Butterflies use a proboscis, a microfluidic probe engineered by natural selection, to feed on nutritive fluids. The structural configuration of proboscises relates to feeding habits; however, the adaptations that enable proboscis entry into narrow floral corollas lack experimental evidence.2. Here, we investigated proboscis adaptations that enable entry into corollas using funnel-shaped glass capillary tubes and performed feeding trials with six butterfly species of different feeding habits. Proboscises were either guided (natural treatment) or forced (forced treatment) into the capillary tubes that were filled with a 20% sucrose solution. The treatments were video-recorded to determine the depth the proboscises reached into the tube and how long they remained there.The results were interpreted in terms of proboscis morphology, friction forces and the material properties of the cuticle.3. In the natural treatment, butterflies classified as flower visitors were more efficient at feeding from the tubes, reaching an average 1.83× deeper into the tubes than the other species and never getting their proboscises stuck. The non-flowervisiting species, in contrast, had their proboscises remain in the tube 17× longer than the flower-visiting species, with 90% of them getting their proboscises at least partially stuck. The butterfly species with generalist feeding habits fed more efficiently than the non-flower visitors, but less than the flower visitors. A similar pattern was observed in the forced treatment. 4. Flower-visiting butterflies had smoother and more tapered proboscises, lower friction forces and a semi-circular cross-section that would reduce bendability and was augmented by a more sclerotized cuticle. Proboscises of flower-visiting butterflies, therefore, have a suite of adaptations that operate synergistically to optimize their feeding habits.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical adaptations of butterfly proboscises enable feeding from narrow floral tubes

Lehnert

Johnson

Wu³

et al. 2021

Functional Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent discoveries on natural drinking strategies highlight the need to deepen our understanding of this vital process across diverse taxa [1–4]. Nectarivorous insects regularly consume floral nectar as their principal energy source and they generally employ two distinct feeding techniques, which can be classified as suction or lapping [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sucking or lapping: facultative feeding mechanisms in honeybees (Apis mellifera)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nectarivorous insects generally adopt suction or lapping to extract nectar from flowers and it is believed that each species exhibits one specific feeding pattern. In recent literature, large groups of nectarivores are classified as either ‘suction feeders', imbibing nectar through their proboscis, or ‘lappers', using viscous dipping. Honeybees ( Apis mellifera ) are the well-known lappers by virtue of their hairy tongues. Surprisingly, we found that honeybees also employ active suction when feeding on nectar with low viscosity, defying their classification as lappers. Further experiments showed that suction yielded higher uptake rates when ingesting low-concentration nectar, while lapping resulted in faster uptake when ingesting nectar with higher sugar content. We found that the optimal concentration of suction mode in honeybees coincided with the one calculated for other typical suction feeders. Moreover, we found behavioural flexibility in the drinking mode: a bee is able to switch between lapping and suction when offered different nectar concentrations. Such volitional switching in bees can enhance their feeding capabilities, allowing them to efficiently exploit the variety of concentrations presented in floral nectars, enhancing their adaptability to a wide range of energy sources.

show abstract

“…Several fluid-uptake mechanisms have been described, which often depend on material properties, including morphology, chemistry and physiology (Kim and Bush, 2012;Crompton and Musinsky, 2011;Lehnert et al, 2013;Harper et al, 2013). Fluidfeeding insects are of particular interest because they have mouthparts that are adapted to acquire and transport nanoliter amounts of liquids (Kim et al, 2011;Lehnert et al, 2017;Hischen et al, 2018). The western honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera), for example, rapidly dips floral nectar using a tongue (glossa) covered with brush-like setae (Snodgrass, 1956;Simpson and Riedel, 1964;Krenn et al, 2005;Wu et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quick tongue: older honey bees dip nectar faster to compensate for mouthpart structure degradation

Chen

et al. 2019

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The western honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera), is arguably the most important pollinator worldwide. While feeding, A. mellifera uses a rapid back-and-forth motion with its brush-like mouthparts to probe pools and films of nectar. Because of the physical forces experienced by the mouthparts during the feeding process, we hypothesized that the mouthparts acquire wear or damage over time, which is paradoxical, because it is the older worker bees that are tasked with foraging for nectar and pollen. Here, we show that the average length of the setae (brush-like structures) on the glossa decreases with honey bee age, particularly when feeding on highviscosity sucrose solutions. The nectar intake rate, however, remains nearly constant regardless of age or setae length (0.39±0.03 μg s −1 for honey bees fed a 45% sucrose solution and 0.48±0.05 μg s −1 for those fed a 35% sucrose solution). Observations of the feeding process with high-speed video recording revealed that the older honey bees with shorter setae dip nectar at a higher frequency. We propose a liquid transport model to calculate the nectar intake rate, energy intake rate and the power to overcome viscous drag. Theoretical analysis indicates that A. mellifera with shorter glossal setae can compensate both nectar and energy intake rates by increasing dipping frequency. The altered feeding behavior provides insight into how A. mellifera, and perhaps other insects with similar feeding mechanisms, can maintain a consistent fluid uptake rate, despite having damaged mouthparts.

show abstract

Mouthpart conduit sizes of fluid-feeding insects determine the ability to feed from pores

Cited by 21 publications

References 43 publications

Physical adaptations of butterfly proboscises enable feeding from narrow floral tubes

Physical adaptations of butterfly proboscises enable feeding from narrow floral tubes

Sucking or lapping: facultative feeding mechanisms in honeybees (Apis mellifera)

A quick tongue: older honey bees dip nectar faster to compensate for mouthpart structure degradation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About