Pollination: Solar flower power
Bumblebees use invisible temperature patterns on flowers to make foraging decisions.
- Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Germany
Most species of flowering plant cannot produce seeds without help from animals, like insects and birds, who transfer pollen between the flowers of different plants – often in return for a reward, such as a drink of sugar-rich nectar. In order to forage efficiently, pollinators seek out flowers with traits that they associate with a higher chance of getting a reward.
Some floral traits like color, shape and scent are obvious to our human senses, and as early as the 18th century scientists had worked out that these signals attract insects (Sprengel, 1793). However, the majority of floral traits have been discovered just recently, using modern technology. Indeed, we now know that pollinators use many different traits to find and evaluate flowers including: CO2 emission (Goyret et al., 2008); ultraviolet-absorbing pigmentation (Sheehan et al., 2016); humidity surrounding the flower (von Arx et al., 2012); fluorescence (Thorp et al., 1975); nectar color (Johnson et al., 2006); and even floral temperature (Dyer et al., 2006; Whitney et al., 2008).
Bees, for example, can use heat detectors on their legs and antennae to tell the difference between two flowers that differ in temperature by just two degrees (Heran, 1952). Now, in eLife, Sean Rands and colleagues from the Universities of Bristol and Exeter – including Michael Harrap as first author – report that bumblebees can also detect temperature differences within a single flower (Harrap et al., 2017).
Thermal images of more than 100 species of flowering plant taken in sunlight revealed a wide range of temperature patterns, reminiscent of the diversity of multi-colored petals we see with our own eyes (Figure 1A). More than half of the tested species had flowers in which some parts of the petals were at least 2°C warmer than the rest. Based on these findings, the researchers hypothesized that pollinators could use these temperature patterns to decide which flowers to visit.
Figure 1
Floral temperature patterns and their role in bumblebee foraging.
(A) Schematic examples of the diversity of floral temperature patterns in the sunlight. By using thermal imaging, Harrap et al. show that more than half of the species they tested have temperature differences within flowers that are big enough to be detected by bumblebees (color indicates temperature as shown in gradient). Experiments with (B) small and (C) large artificial flowers tested if bumblebees could associate a certain temperature pattern with a reward, in this case a sugar solution (blue cup symbol). Bumblebees were presented with two variants of temperature patterns, one containing the sugar reward and the other just water (top and middle rows). As a control, flowers without temperature patterns were used as both rewarding and non-rewarding flowers (bottom row). The position of the bumblebee in B and C shows which floral temperature pattern was visited the most after 60 visits, demonstrating that bumblebees were able to use these patterns to increase their foraging success.
Harrap et al. tested if bumblebees (Bombus terrestris audax) could learn to associate a reward, in this case a drop of a sugary solution, with a certain temperature pattern. They presented two types of artificial flowers containing heating elements to naïve bumblebees. The artificial flowers in the first experiment had either a warm center or a warm periphery (Figure 1B), while those in the second had warmer centers in two different shapes (Figure 1C). In all experiments, one variant contained a drop of sugar, while the other just offered water. Flowers with disconnected heating elements were used as controls.
The bumblebees did recognize different temperature patterns and, in fewer than 20 visits, had learned to forage from those flowers that would give them the reward. Importantly, when there were no temperature patterns, as is in the controls, the bumblebees could not discriminate rewarding from non-rewarding flowers. Also, once the bumblebees had learned to associate a certain temperature pattern with a sugary reward, they continued to prefer this type of flower even when the reward was removed. These results indicate that the bumblebees were using the flower temperature patterns (and not other cues) to make an informed decision when foraging.
Why did plants evolve such incredibly complex and diverse floral traits? Plants often have to compete for pollinators, either with other plant species or with other members of their own species. Any trait that enables a flower to attract more pollinators than its competitors will give it an evolutionary advantage (in other words, more seeds or higher quality offspring). Of course, plants do not invent new traits with the intention of manipulating pollinators. Instead, small mutations occur in each generation and those that change floral traits offer a chance to bring the interaction between pollinator and flower closer to perfection. Hence, it is not surprising that so many floral traits are important and act together at the same time in a single plant species.
It is exciting that sunlight is needed to turn 'on' these temperature patterns and guide pollinators to flowers. Many other floral traits are hidden from our eyes and we have just started to unveil the ways in which pollinators are able to perceive and use floral signals. Combining 'old-fashioned' natural observations with new tools, such as thermal imaging cameras or 3D printers (Campos et al., 2015), allows us to unearth the wealth of strategies that pollinators and plants use to successfully interact with each other. Floral temperature patterns triggered by sunlight to signal to bumblebees are yet another example of an impressive feat of evolution.
References
-
Untersuchungen über den Temperatursinn der Honigbiene (Apis mellifica) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Wahrnehmung strahlender WärmeZeitschrift Für Vergleichende Physiologie 34:179–206.
-
BookDas entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der BlumenBerlin: Vieweg.
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2017, Bing et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,994
- views
-
- 190
- downloads
-
- 0
- 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)
Pollination: Solar flower power
eLife 6:e33591.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33591
Further reading
-
- Ecology
Optimal foraging theory posits that foragers adjust their movements based on prey abundance to optimize food intake. While extensively studied in terrestrial and marine environments, aerial foraging has remained relatively unexplored due to technological limitations. This study, uniquely combining BirdScan-MR1 radar and the Advanced Tracking and Localization of Animals in Real-Life Systems biotelemetry system, investigates the foraging dynamics of Little Swifts (Apus affinis) in response to insect movements over Israel’s Hula Valley. Insect movement traffic rate (MoTR) substantially varied across days, strongly influencing swift movement. On days with high MoTR, swifts exhibited reduced flight distance, increased colony visit rate, and earlier arrivals at the breeding colony, reflecting a dynamic response to prey availability. However, no significant effects were observed in total foraging duration, flight speed, or daily route length. Notably, as insect abundance increased, inter-individual distances decreased. These findings suggest that Little Swifts optimize their foraging behavior in relation to aerial insect abundance, likely influencing reproductive success and population dynamics. The integration of radar technology and biotelemetry systems provides a unique perspective on the interactions between aerial insectivores and their prey, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of optimal foraging strategies in diverse environments.
-
- Ecology
- Evolutionary Biology
Understanding the origins of novel, complex phenotypes is a major goal in evolutionary biology. Poison frogs of the family Dendrobatidae have evolved the novel ability to acquire alkaloids from their diet for chemical defense at least three times. However, taxon sampling for alkaloids has been biased towards colorful species, without similar attention paid to inconspicuous ones that are often assumed to be undefended. As a result, our understanding of how chemical defense evolved in this group is incomplete. Here, we provide new data showing that, in contrast to previous studies, species from each undefended poison frog clade have measurable yet low amounts of alkaloids. We confirm that undefended dendrobatids regularly consume mites and ants, which are known sources of alkaloids. Thus, our data suggest that diet is insufficient to explain the defended phenotype. Our data support the existence of a phenotypic intermediate between toxin consumption and sequestration — passive accumulation — that differs from sequestration in that it involves no derived forms of transport and storage mechanisms yet results in low levels of toxin accumulation. We discuss the concept of passive accumulation and its potential role in the origin of chemical defenses in poison frogs and other toxin-sequestering organisms. In light of ideas from pharmacokinetics, we incorporate new and old data from poison frogs into an evolutionary model that could help explain the origins of acquired chemical defenses in animals and provide insight into the molecular processes that govern the fate of ingested toxins.
