Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Year of publication
- 2023 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Keywords
- AmGr1 (1)
- AmGr2 (1)
- AmGr3 (1)
- Apis mellifera (1)
- animal behaviour (1)
- animal physiology (1)
- gustatory receptors (Grs) (1)
- honeybee taste perception (1)
- insecticide (1)
- non-SBI fungicide (1)
- pesticide mixture (1)
- proboscis extension response (PER) (1)
- sublethal effect (1)
- sugar responsiveness (1)
- synergistic effect (1)
Formic acid is the main component of the ant’s major weapon against enemies. Being mainly used as a chemical defense, the acid is also exploited for recruitment and trail marking. The repelling effect of the organic acid is used by some mammals and birds which rub themselves in the acid to eliminate ectoparasites. Beekeepers across the world rely on this effect to control the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. Varroa mites are considered the most destructive pest of honey bees worldwide and can lead to the loss of entire colonies. Formic acid is highly effective against Varroa mites but can also kill the honeybee queen and worker brood. Whether formic acid can also affect the behavior of honey bees is unknown. We here study the effect of formic acid on sucrose responsiveness and cognition of honey bees treated at different live stages in field-relevant doses. Both behaviors are essential for survival of the honey bee colony. Rather unexpectedly, formic acid clearly improved the learning performance of the bees in appetitive olfactory conditioning, while not affecting sucrose responsiveness. This exciting side effect of formic acid certainly deserves further detailed investigations.
Honeybees (Apis mellifera) need their fine sense of taste to evaluate nectar and pollen sources. Gustatory receptors (Grs) translate taste signals into electrical responses. In vivo experiments have demonstrated collective responses of the whole Gr-set. We here disentangle the contributions of all three honeybee sugar receptors (AmGr1-3), combining CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genetic knock-out, electrophysiology and behaviour. We show an expanded sugar spectrum of the AmGr1 receptor. Mutants lacking AmGr1 have a reduced response to sucrose and glucose but not to fructose. AmGr2 solely acts as co-receptor of AmGr1 but not of AmGr3, as we show by electrophysiology and using bimolecular fluorescence complementation. Our results show for the first time that AmGr2 is indeed a functional receptor on its own. Intriguingly, AmGr2 mutants still display a wildtype-like sugar taste. AmGr3 is a specific fructose receptor and is not modulated by a co-receptor. Eliminating AmGr3 while preserving AmGr1 and AmGr2 abolishes the perception of fructose but not of sucrose. Our comprehensive study on the functions of AmGr1, AmGr2 and AmGr3 in honeybees is the first to combine investigations on sugar perception at the receptor level and simultaneously in vivo. We show that honeybees rely on two gustatory receptors to sense all relevant sugars.
The increasing loss of pollinators over the last decades has become more and more evident. Intensive use of plant protection products is one key factor contributing to this decline. Especially the mixture of different plant protection products can pose an increased risk for pollinators as synergistic effects may occur. In this study we investigated the effect of the fungicide Cantus® Gold (boscalid/dimoxystrobin), the neonicotinoid insecticide Mospilan® (acetamiprid) and their mixture on honeybees. Since both plant protection products are frequently applied sequentially to the same plants (e.g. oilseed rape), their combination is a realistic scenario for honeybees. We investigated the mortality, the sucrose responsiveness and the differential olfactory learning performance of honeybees under controlled conditions in the laboratory to reduce environmental noise. Intact sucrose responsiveness and learning performance are of pivotal importance for the survival of individual honeybees as well as for the functioning of the entire colony. Treatment with two sublethal and field relevant concentrations of each plant protection product did not lead to any significant effects on these behaviors but affected the mortality rate. However, our study cannot exclude possible negative sublethal effects of these substances in higher concentrations. In addition, the honeybee seems to be quite robust when it comes to effects of plant protection products, while wild bees might be more sensitive.
Highlights
• Mix of SBI fungicides and neonicotinoids can lead to synergistic effects for bees.
• Combination of non-SBI fungicide and neonicotinoid in field-realistic doses tested.
• Synergistic effect on mortality of honeybees.
• No effects on sucrose responsiveness and learning performance of honeybees.
• Synergistic effects by other pesticide mixtures or on wild bees cannot be excluded.