Prophylaxis with resin in wood ants

Castella, Grégoire; Chapuisat, Michel; Christe, Philippe

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.014

Cited by 73 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Silk in other insects has been shown to have antimicrobial properties (Li et al, 2007;Korayem et al, 2007), and it remains possible that the silk of P. dives may be active against other parasites or that the ants use their silk to provide a more general, colony-level resistance than tested here. Wood ants, for example, use tree resin both to enhance individual-level resistance and to provide colony-level protection against parasites (Castella et al, 2008;Chapuisat et al, 2007;Christe et al, 2003). However, the results in combination suggest that P. dives do not use, or gain individual-level benefits from, silk, at least when resisting the parasite and dose tested experimentally here.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 43%

Weaving resistance: silk and disease resistance in the weaver ant Polyrhachis dives

Fountain

Hughes

2011

Insect. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social insects are at risk from a diverse range of parasites. The antibiotic-producing metapleural gland is an ancestral trait in ants which is thought to be one of their primary mechanisms of resistance. However, the metapleural gland has been lost secondarily in three ant genera, which include weaver ants that are characterised by the remarkable construction of their nests using larval silk. Silken nests may have allowed reduced investment in costly disease resistance mechanisms like the metapleural gland if the silk has antimicrobial properties, as in other insects, or is a hygienic substrate. Here we examine this hypothesis in the weaver ant Polyrhachis dives. We found no evidence of a beneficial effect of silk. The presence of silk did not improve the already high resistance of ants to the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium, the ants only rarely interacted with the silk regardless of whether they were exposed to Metarhizium or not, and silk also did not inhibit the in vitro germination or growth of Metarhizium. Furthermore, silk was found in vitro to be heavily contaminated with the facultative entomopathogenic fungus Aspergillus flavus, and many more ants sporulated with this fungus when kept with silk in vivo than when they were kept without silk. Further work is needed to examine the effects of silk on other parasites and of silk from other weaver ants. However, the results in combination suggest that silk in P. dives is unlikely to provide protection against parasites and that it is also not a hygienic substrate. Alternative explanations may therefore be needed for the loss of the metapleural gland in weaver ants.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 43%

Weaving resistance: silk and disease resistance in the weaver ant Polyrhachis dives

Fountain

Hughes

2011

Insect. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such self-medication has also been demonstrated in various insects (Castella et al, 2008;Lefèvre et al, 2010;Singer et al, 2009) …”

Section: Effect Of Nectar Nicotine On Honeybee Survivalmentioning

confidence: 86%

Honeybees and nectar nicotine: Deterrence and reduced survival versus potential health benefits

Köhler

Pirk

Nicolson

2012

Journal of Insect Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Secondary metabolites produced by plants for herbivore defence are often found in floral nectar, but their effect on the foraging behaviour and physiological performance of pollinators is largely unknown. Nicotine is highly toxic to most herbivores, and nicotine-based insecticides may contribute to current pollinator declines. We examined the effects of nectar nicotine on honeybee foraging choices and worker longevity. Free-flying honeybee (Apis mellifera scutellata) workers from six colonies were given a choice between multiple nicotine concentrations (0-1000 µM) in artificial nectar (0.15-0.63 M sucrose). The dose-dependent deterrent effect of nicotine was stronger in lower sugar concentrations, but even the highest nicotine concentrations did not completely repel honeybees, i.e. bees did not stop feeding on these diets. Nicotine in nectar acts as a partial repellent, which may keep pollinators moving between plants and enhance crosspollination. In the second part of the study, newly emerged workers from 12 colonies were caged and fed one of four nicotine concentrations (0-300 µM) in 0.63 M sucrose for 21 days. Moderate (≤30 µM) nicotine concentrations had no significant detrimental effect, but high nicotine concentrations reduced the survival of caged workers and their nectar storage in the honey comb.In contrast, worker groups that survived poorly on sugar-only diets demonstrated increased survival on all nicotine diets. In the absence of alternative nectar sources, honeybees tolerate naturally occurring nectar nicotine concentrations; and low concentrations can even be beneficial to honeybees. However, high nicotine concentrations may have a detrimental effect on colony fitness.

show abstract

“…Examples of self-medication in the insect literature, particularly with respect to social insects are less common. When F. paralugubris ant colonies were challenged with the fungal pathogen Metarhizium anisopliae, they did not respond by increasing the rate or quantity of resin collection, and the authors concluded that the use of resin by this species was a constitutive rather than inducible response, and therefore not an example of self-medication (Castella et al, 2008b). Honey bee colonies infected with diseases or parasitic mites do not appear to respond by collecting more resin (M. Simone-Finstrom, M. Spivak, pers.…”

Section: Self Medicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propolis and bee health: the natural history and significance of resin use by honey bees

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Social immunity, which describes how individual behaviors of group members effectively reduce disease and parasite transmission at the colony level, is an emerging field in social insect biology. An understudied, but significant behavioral disease resistance mechanism in honey bees is their collection and use of plant resins. Honey bees harvest resins with antimicrobial properties from various plant species and bring them back to the colony where they are then mixed with varying amounts of wax and utilized as propolis. Propolis is an apicultural term for the resins when used by bees within a hive. While numerous studies have investigated the chemical components of propolis that could be used to treat human diseases, there is a lack of information on the importance of propolis in regards to bee health. This review serves to provide a compilation of recent research concerning the behavior of bees in relation to resins and propolis, focusing more on the bees themselves and the potential evolutionary benefits of resin collection. Future research goals are also established in order to create a new focus within the literature on the natural history of resin use among the social insects and role that propolis plays in disease resistance.Apis mellifera / social immunity / antimicrobial defense / ecological immunity

show abstract

Prophylaxis with resin in wood ants

Cited by 73 publications

References 38 publications

Weaving resistance: silk and disease resistance in the weaver ant Polyrhachis dives

Weaving resistance: silk and disease resistance in the weaver ant Polyrhachis dives

Honeybees and nectar nicotine: Deterrence and reduced survival versus potential health benefits

Propolis and bee health: the natural history and significance of resin use by honey bees

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About