Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Floral visitors and ant scent marks: noticed but not used?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

1. Bee behaviour when visiting flowers is mediated by a large variety of chemical cues from both 11 the flower itself and also previous visitors to the flower. Flowers that have been recently visited 12 by bees and hoverflies may be rejected for a period of time by subsequent bee visitors. 13
2. Nectar-thieving ants also commonly visit flowers and could potentially influence the foraging 14 decisions of bees in the same way, through the detection of ant trail pheromones or footprint 15 hydrocarbons. 16
3. Here we demonstrate that, while naïve bumblebees are not inherently repelled by ant scent-17 marks, they can learn to use them as informative signals while foraging. 18
4. To test for similar activity in the wild, visitor behaviour at the flowers of three plant species 19 Digitalis purpurea, Bupleurum fruticosum and Brassica juncea, was compared between 20 flowers that had been in contact with ants and those that had not. No differences were found 21 between the two treatments. 22
5. Perhaps due to the context-dependent usage of chemical foraging cues, bee behaviour under 23 these conditions was not influenced by chemical cues deposited by ants.
Close

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)402-409
JournalEcological Entomology
Volume37
Issue number5
Early online date11 Sep 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Research areas

  • associative learning; foraging strategies; scent-marks; ant nectar thieves

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. A dual function for 4-methoxybenzaldehyde in Petasites fragrans? Pollinator-attractant and ant-repellent

    Pattrick, J. G., Shepherd, T., Hoppitt, W., Plowman, N. S. & Willmer, P., Oct 2017, In : Arthropod-Plant Interactions. 11, 5, p. 623-627 5 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Pollinator importance networks illustrate the crucial value of bees in a highly speciose plant community

    Ballantyne, G., Baldock, K. C. R., Rendell, L. & Willmer, P. G., 21 Aug 2017, In : Scientific Reports. 7, 13 p., 8389.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Insights from measuring pollen deposition: quantifying the pre-eminence of bees as flower visitors and effective pollinators

    Willmer, P. G., Cunnold, H. E. & Ballantyne, G. A., Jun 2017, In : Arthropod-Plant Interactions. 11, 3, p. 411-425 15 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related by journal

  1. Reproductive interference in insects

    Shuker, D. M. & Burdfield-Steel, E. R., Aug 2017, In : Ecological Entomology. 42, S1, p. 65-75

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid disrupts sex allocation cue use during superparasitism in the parasitoid wasp Nasonia vitripennis

    Cook, N., Green, J., Shuker, D. M. & Whitehorn, P. R., 7 Nov 2016, In : Ecological Entomology. 41, 6, p. 693-697 5 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Role of nesting resources in organising diverse bee communities in a Mediterranean landscape

    Potts, S. G., Vulliamy, B., Roberts, S., O'Toole, C., Dafni, A., NE'Eman, G. & Willmer, P., Feb 2005, In : Ecological Entomology. 30, 1, p. 78-85 8 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. How does insect visitation trigger floral colour change?

    Nuttman, CV. & Willmer, P. G., Aug 2003, In : Ecological Entomology. 28, 4, p. 467-474 8 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

ID: 21293374

Top