Hawkmoths evaluate scenting flowers with the tip of their proboscis

  1. Alexander Haverkamp
  2. Felipe Yon
  3. Ian W Keesey
  4. Christine Mißbach
  5. Christopher Koenig
  6. Bill S Hansson
  7. Ian T Baldwin
  8. Markus Knaden
  9. Danny Kessler  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Germany

Abstract

Pollination by insects is essential to many ecosystems. Previously, we have shown that floral scent is important to mediate pollen transfer between plants (Kessler et al., 2015). Yet, the mechanisms by which pollinators evaluate volatiles of single flowers remained unclear. Here, Nicotiana attenuata plants, in which floral volatiles have been genetically silenced and its hawkmoth pollinator, Manduca sexta, were used in semi-natural tent and wind-tunnel assays to explore the function of floral scent. We found that floral scent not only functions to increase the fitness of individual flowers by increasing detectability but also by enhancing the pollinator's foraging efforts. Combining proboscis choice tests with neurophysiological, anatomical and molecular analyses we show that this effect is governed by newly discovered olfactory neurons on the tip of the moth's proboscis. With the tip of their tongue, pollinators assess the advertisement of individual flowers, an ability essential for maintaining this important ecosystem service.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alexander Haverkamp

    Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Felipe Yon

    Department of Molecular Ecology, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Ian W Keesey

    Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Christine Mißbach

    Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Christopher Koenig

    Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Bill S Hansson

    Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    Bill S Hansson, Vice President of the Max Planck Society, one of the three founding funders of eLife, and a member of eLife's Board of Directors..
  7. Ian T Baldwin

    Department of Molecular Ecology, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    Ian T Baldwin, Senior editor, eLife.
  8. Markus Knaden

    Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Danny Kessler

    Department of Molecular Ecology, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
    For correspondence
    dkessler@ice.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Copyright

© 2016, Haverkamp et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,357
    views
  • 705
    downloads
  • 56
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Alexander Haverkamp
  2. Felipe Yon
  3. Ian W Keesey
  4. Christine Mißbach
  5. Christopher Koenig
  6. Bill S Hansson
  7. Ian T Baldwin
  8. Markus Knaden
  9. Danny Kessler
(2016)
Hawkmoths evaluate scenting flowers with the tip of their proboscis
eLife 5:e15039.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15039

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15039

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Zhujun Shao, Mengya Zhang, Qing Yu
    Research Article

    When holding visual information temporarily in working memory (WM), the neural representation of the memorandum is distributed across various cortical regions, including visual and frontal cortices. However, the role of stimulus representation in visual and frontal cortices during WM has been controversial. Here, we tested the hypothesis that stimulus representation persists in the frontal cortex to facilitate flexible control demands in WM. During functional MRI, participants flexibly switched between simple WM maintenance of visual stimulus or more complex rule-based categorization of maintained stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. Our results demonstrated enhanced stimulus representation in the frontal cortex that tracked demands for active WM control and enhanced stimulus representation in the visual cortex that tracked demands for precise WM maintenance. This differential frontal stimulus representation traded off with the newly-generated category representation with varying control demands. Simulation using multi-module recurrent neural networks replicated human neural patterns when stimulus information was preserved for network readout. Altogether, these findings help reconcile the long-standing debate in WM research, and provide empirical and computational evidence that flexible stimulus representation in the frontal cortex during WM serves as a potential neural coding scheme to accommodate the ever-changing environment.

    1. Neuroscience
    Gáspár Oláh, Rajmund Lákovics ... Gábor Tamás
    Research Article

    Human-specific cognitive abilities depend on information processing in the cerebral cortex, where the neurons are significantly larger and their processes longer and sparser compared to rodents. We found that, in synaptically connected layer 2/3 pyramidal cells (L2/3 PCs), the delay in signal propagation from soma to soma is similar in humans and rodents. To compensate for the longer processes of neurons, membrane potential changes in human axons and/or dendrites must propagate faster. Axonal and dendritic recordings show that the propagation speed of action potentials (APs) is similar in human and rat axons, but the forward propagation of excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) and the backward propagation of APs are 26 and 47% faster in human dendrites, respectively. Experimentally-based detailed biophysical models have shown that the key factor responsible for the accelerated EPSP propagation in human cortical dendrites is the large conductance load imposed at the soma by the large basal dendritic tree. Additionally, larger dendritic diameters and differences in cable and ion channel properties in humans contribute to enhanced signal propagation. Our integrative experimental and modeling study provides new insights into the scaling rules that help maintain information processing speed albeit the large and sparse neurons in the human cortex.