|Appears in Collections:||Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Identity and function of scent marks deposited by foraging bumblebees|
Stout, Jane C
Hughes, William O H
tarsal gland secretions
|Citation:||Goulson D, Stout JC, Langley J & Hughes WOH (2000) Identity and function of scent marks deposited by foraging bumblebees. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 26 (12), pp. 2897-2911. https://doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1026406330348|
|Abstract:||Foraging bumblebees can detect scents left on flowers by previous bumblebee visitors and hence avoid flowers that have been depleted of nectar. Tarsal secretions are probably responsible for this repellent effect. The chemical components of the tarsal glands were analyzed by combined gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for three species of bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, B. lapidarius, and B. pascuorum. The hydrocarbons identified were similar for each species, although there were interspecific differences in the relative amounts of each compound present. The tarsal extracts of all three species comprised complex mixtures of long-chain alkanes and alkenes with between 21 and 29 carbon atoms. When B. terrestris tarsal extracts were applied to flowers and offered to foraging bumblebees of the three species, each exhibited a similar response; concentrated solutions produced a repellent effect, which decreased as the concentration declined. We bioassayed synthetic tricosane (one of the compounds found in the tarsal extracts) at a range of doses to determine whether it gave a similar response. Doses 10–12 ng/flower resulted in rejection by foraging B. lapidarius. Only when 10–14 ng was applied did the repellent effect fade. We bioassayed four other synthetic compounds found in tarsal extracts and a mixture of all five compounds to determine which were important in inducing a repellent effect in B. lapidarius workers. All induced repellency but the strength of the response varied; heneicosane was most repellent while tricosene was least repellent. These findings are discussed in relation to previous studies that found that tarsal scent marks were attractive rather than repellent.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|goulson_scentmarks_2000.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||100.31 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 3000-01-01 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.