Abstract
In social insects, much progress has been made in identifying variations in the cuticular signatures of sexes, castes, kin and reproductive status. In contrast to this, we still do not know how the receivers perceive these recognition cues. This study was designed to investigate whether honeybees use contact-chemosensory or olfactory sensilla to perceive wax components. To answer this question in a behavioral assay, we combined classical conditioning of the proboscis extension reaction and a recently established method using zinc sulfate to selectively block antennal contact-chemosensory sensilla. Comparison of the responses to sucrose, wax and geraniol before and after antennal zinc sulfate treatment revealed that the sucrose response is lost after treatment but the responses to wax and geraniol are maintained. As sucrose is perceived by the contact-chemosensory sensilla, the retention of the wax response indicates that contact-chemosensory sensilla are not necessary for wax perception.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Balakrishnan R, Pollack GS (1997) The role of antennal sensory cues in female responses to courting males in the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. J Exp Biol 200:511–522
Bitterman ME, Menzel R, Fietz A, Schäfer S (1983) Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Physiol 97:107–119
Breed MD (1998) Chemical cues in kin recognition: criteria for identification, experimental approaches, and the honey bee as an example. In: Vander Meer RK, Breed MD, Espelie KE, Winston ML (eds) Pheromone communication in social insects. Westview, Colorado, pp 57–78
Breed MD, Garry MF, Pearce AN, Hibbard BE, Bjostad LB, Page Jr RE (1995) The role of wax comb in the honey bee nestmate recognition. Anim Behav 50:489–496
Brückner D, Getz WM (1991) Odour perception as related to kin recognition. In: Goodman LJ, Fischer RC (eds) The behavior and physiology of bees. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 60–68
Eigenbrode S, Espelie KE (1995) Effects of plant epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores. Annu Rev Entomol 40:171–194
Esslen J, Kaissling KE (1976) Zahl und Verteilung antennaler Sensillen bei der Honigbiene (Apis mellifera L.). Zoomorphology 83:227–251
Fröhlich B, Riederer M, Tautz J (2000a) Comb wax discrimination by honeybees tested with the proboscis extension reflex. J Exp Biol 203:1581–1587
Fröhlich B, Riederer M, Tautz J (2000b) Chemotactic classification of comb and cuticular waxes of the honey bee Apis mellifera carnica. J Chem Ecol 26:123–137
Getz WM (1991) The honey bee as a model kin recognition system. In: Hepper PG (ed) Kin recognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 358–413
Groh C, Brockmann A, Altwein M, Tautz J (2002) Selective blocking of contact chemosensilla in Apis mellifera. Apidologie 33:33–40
Hölldobler B, Michener CD (1980) Mechanisms of identification and discrimination in social hymenoptera. In Markl H (ed) Evolution of social behavior: hypothesis and empirical test. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, pp 35–58
Juniper B, Southwood R (1986) Insects and the plant surface. Pergamon, London
Lacher V (1964) Elektrophysiologische Untersuchungen an einzelnen Rezeptoren für Geruch, Kohlendioxid, Luftfeuchtigkeit und Temperatur auf den Antennen der Arbeitsbiene und der Drohne (Apis mellifera). Z Vergl Physiol 48:587–623
Liebig J, Peeters C, Oldham NJ, Markstädter C, Hölldobler B (2000) Are variations in cuticular hydrocarbons of queens and workers a reliable signal of fertility in the ant Harpegnathus saltator? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:4124–4131
Martin H, Lindauer M (1966) Sinnesphysiologische Leistungen beim Wabenbau der Honigbiene. Z Vergl Physiol 53:372–404
Minnich DE (1932) The contact chemoreceptors of the honey bee Apis mellifera Linn. J Exp Zool 61:375–393
Page RE Jr, Metcalf RA, Metcalf RL, Erickson EH Jr, Lampman RL (1991) Extractable hydrocarbons and kin recognition in honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). J Chem Ecol 17:745–756
Ruther J, Sieben S, Schricker B (2002) Nestmate recognition in social wasps: manipulation of hydrocarbon profiles induces aggression in the European hornet. Naturwissenschaften 89:111–114
Singer TL (1998) Roles of hydrocarbons in the recognition systems of insects. Am Zool 38:394–405
Smith BH (1993) Merging mechanism and adaptation: an ethological approach to learning and generalization. In: Papaj DR, Lewis AC (eds) Insect learning: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 126–157
Städler E (1984) Contact chemoreception. In: Bell WJ, Cardé RT (eds) Chemical ecology of insects. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 3–35
Takeda K (1961) Classical conditioned response in the honey bee. J Insect Physiol 6:168–179
Vareschi E (1971) Duftunterscheidung bei der Honigbiene: Einzelzellableitungen und Verhaltensreaktionen. Z Vergl Physiol 75:143–173
Whitehead AT, Larsen JR (1976) Ultrastructure of the contact chemoreceptors of Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Int J Insect Morphol Embryol 5:301–315
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to M. Riederer and J. Tautz for helpful discussions and valuable suggestions during the experiments. J. Giegerich was a great help in conditioning the bees. We thank C.W.W. Pirk, W. Rössler, and J. Spaethe for improvements to an earlier version of the manuscript. A. Brockmann, B. Fröhlich, and C. Groh were funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 554 and GK 200.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brockmann, A., Groh, C. & Fröhlich, B. Wax perception in honeybees: contact is not necessary. Naturwissenschaften 90, 424–427 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-003-0442-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-003-0442-3