Chemical Senses Advance Access originally published online on March 23, 2005
Chemical Senses 2005 30(4):327-335; doi:10.1093/chemse/bji027
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Learning and Discrimination of Individual Cuticular Hydrocarbons by Honeybees (Apis mellifera)
1 Laboratory of Apiculture and Social Insects, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK, 2 Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale, CNRS UMR 5169, Université Paul Sabatier, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse Cedex 4, France and 3 Chemical Ecology Group, School of Chemistry and Physics, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK
Correspondence to be sent to: Nicolas Châline, Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l'Insecte, Faculté des Sciences, Université de Tours, Parc Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France. e-mail: nicolas.chaline{at}univ-tours.fr
In social insect colonies, recognition of nestmates, kinship, caste and reproductive status is crucial both for individuals and for the colony. The recognition cues used are thought to be chemical, with the hydrocarbons found on the cuticle of insects often cited as being particularly important. However, in honeybees (Apis mellifera) the role of cuticular hydrocarbons in nestmate recognition is controversial. Here we use the proboscis extension response (PER) conditioning paradigm to determine how well honeybees learn long-chain linear alkanes and (Z)-alkenes present on the cuticle of worker bees, and also how well they can discriminate between them. We found large differences both in learning and discrimination abilities with the different cuticular hydrocarbons. Thus, the tested hydrocarbons could be classified into those which the bees learnt and discriminated well (mostly alkenes) and those which they did not (alkanes and some alkenes). These well-learnt alkenes may constitute important compounds used as cues in the social recognition processes.
Key words: chemosensory cues, differential conditioning, guarding, nestmate recognition, proboscis extension response
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. J. Guerrieri, V. Nehring, C. G. Jorgensen, J. Nielsen, C. G. Galizia, and P. d'Ettorre Ants recognize foes and not friends Proc R Soc B, July 7, 2009; 276(1666): 2461 - 2468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Heimken, P. Aumeier, and W. H. Kirchner Mechanisms of food provisioning of honeybee larvae by worker bees J. Exp. Biol., April 1, 2009; 212(7): 1032 - 1035. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. J Martin, E. Vitikainen, H. Helantera, and F. P Drijfhout Chemical basis of nest-mate discrimination in the ant Formica exsecta Proc R Soc B, June 7, 2008; 275(1640): 1271 - 1278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. R. Dani, G. R. Jones, S. Corsi, R. Beard, D. Pradella, and S. Turillazzi Nestmate Recognition Cues in the Honey Bee: Differential Importance of Cuticular Alkanes and Alkenes Chem Senses, July 1, 2005; 30(6): 477 - 489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|