1. Ecology
Download icon

The cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of honey bee workers develop via a socially-modulated innate process

  1. Cassondra L Vernier
  2. Joshua J Krupp
  3. Katelyn Marcus
  4. Abraham Hefetz
  5. Joel D Levine
  6. Yehuda Ben-Shahar  Is a corresponding author
  1. Washington University in St Louis, United States
  2. University of Toronto Mississauga, Canada
  3. Tel Aviv University, Israel
Research Article
  • Cited 4
  • Views 1,723
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e41855 doi: 10.7554/eLife.41855

Abstract

Large social insect colonies exhibit a remarkable ability for recognizing group members via colony-specific cuticular pheromonal signatures. Previous work suggested that in some ant species, colony-specific pheromonal profiles are generated through a mechanism involving the transfer and homogenization of cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) across members of the colony. However, how colony-specific chemical profiles are generated in other social insect clades remains mostly unknown. Here we show that in the honey bee (Apis mellifera), the colony-specific CHC profile completes its maturation in foragers via a sequence of stereotypic age-dependent quantitative and qualitative chemical transitions, which are driven by environmentally-sensitive intrinsic biosynthetic pathways. Therefore, the CHC profiles of individual honey bees are not likely produced through homogenization and transfer mechanisms, but instead mature in association with age-dependent division of labor. Furthermore, non-nestmate rejection behaviors seem to be contextually restricted to behavioral interactions between entering foragers and guards at the hive entrance.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cassondra L Vernier

    Department of Biology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Joshua J Krupp

    Department of Biology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Katelyn Marcus

    Department of Biology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Abraham Hefetz

    Department of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9678-9429
  5. Joel D Levine

    Department of Biology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6254-6274
  6. Yehuda Ben-Shahar

    Department of Biology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, United States
    For correspondence
    benshahary@wustl.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2956-2926

Funding

National Science Foundation (1545778)

  • Yehuda Ben-Shahar

National Science Foundation (1707221)

  • Yehuda Ben-Shahar

National Science Foundation (1754264)

  • Yehuda Ben-Shahar

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

  • Joel D Levine

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

  • Joshua J Krupp
  • Joel D Levine

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Kristin Scott, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: September 9, 2018
  2. Accepted: January 31, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 5, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 20, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Vernier 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

  • 1,723
    Page views
  • 236
    Downloads
  • 4
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    Léa Beaumelle et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Understanding the consequences of ongoing biodiversity changes for ecosystems is a pressing challenge. Controlled biodiversity-ecosystem function experiments with random biodiversity loss scenarios have demonstrated that more diverse communities usually provide higher levels of ecosystem functioning. However, it is not clear if these results predict the ecosystem consequences of environmental changes that cause non-random alterations in biodiversity and community composition. We synthesized 69 independent studies reporting 660 observations of the impacts of two pervasive drivers of global change (chemical stressors and nutrient enrichment) on animal and microbial decomposer diversity and litter decomposition. Using meta-analysis and structural equation modeling, we show that declines in decomposer diversity and abundance explain reduced litter decomposition in response to stressors but not to nutrients. While chemical stressors generally reduced biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, detrimental effects of nutrients occurred only at high levels of nutrient inputs. Thus, more intense environmental change does not always result in stronger responses, illustrating the complexity of ecosystem consequences of biodiversity change. Overall, these findings provide strong evidence that the consequences of observed biodiversity change for ecosystems depend on the kind of environmental change, and are especially significant when human activities decrease biodiversity.

    1. Ecology
    Liang Kou et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Plant species diversity affects carbon and nutrient cycling during litter decomposition, yet the generality of the direction of this effect and its magnitude remains uncertain. With a meta-analysis including 65 field studies across the Earth’s major forest ecosystems, we show here that decomposition was faster when litter was composed of more than one species. These positive biodiversity effects were mostly driven by temperate forests but were more variable in other forests. Litter mixture effects emerged most strongly in early decomposition stages and were related to divergence in litter quality. Litter diversity also accelerated nitrogen, but not phosphorus release, potentially indicating a decoupling of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling and perhaps a shift in ecosystem nutrient limitation with changing biodiversity. Our findings demonstrate the importance of litter diversity effects for carbon and nutrient dynamics during decomposition, and show how these effects vary with litter traits, decomposer complexity and forest characteristics.