Is the bee louse Braula coeca (Diptera) using chemical camouflage to survive within honeybee colonies?

A Hitchhiker's Ride: The Honey Bee Louse Braula Coeca (Diptera: Braulidae) Selects its Host by Eavesdropping

The bee louse Braula spp. had until recently a distribution coincident with its host the honey bee. The adult fly usually attaches to a worker honey bee and steals food from its mouth. However, not all worker bees carry Braula spp. and the mechanism used by Braula spp. to select hosts is not well understood. Using choice remounting bioassays and chemical analyses, we determined host selection and the cues used by B. coeca, a species associated with the African honey bee Apis mellifera scutellata. Braula coeca successfully remounted bees from which they were initially removed and preferred their mandibular gland pheromones (MDG) over those of bees not carrying them. The bee lice did not show any preference for the cuticular hydrocarbons of both types of workers. Chemical analyses of the MDG extracts, revealed quantitative differences between the two categories of workers, with workers carrying B. coeca having more of the queen substance (9-oxo-2(E)-decenoic acid) and worker substance (10-hydroxy-2(E)-decenoic). Braula coeca showed a dose response to the queen substance, indicating its ability to use host derived kairomones as cues that allowed it to benefit from trophallactic dominance by individuals that have a higher probability of being fed by other workers.

Prisoners receive food fit for a queen: honeybees feed small hive beetles protein-rich glandular secretions through trophallaxis

The honeybee nest parasite Aethina tumida (small hive beetle) uses behavioural mimicry to induce trophallactic feeding from its honeybee hosts. Small hive beetles are able to induce honeybee workers to share the carbohydrate-rich contents of their crops, but it is not clear whether the beetles are able to induce to workers to feed them the protein-rich hypopharyngeal glandular secretions fed to the queen, larvae and other nest mates. Protein is a limiting macronutrient in an insect's diet, essential for survival, growth and fecundity. Honeybees obtain protein from pollen, which is consumed and digested by nurse bees. They then distribute the protein to the rest of the colony in the form of hypopharyngeal gland secretions. Using ¹⁴C-phenylalanine as a qualitative marker for protein transfer, we show that small hive beetles successfully induce worker bees to feed them the protein-rich secretions of their hypopharyngeal glands during trophallaxis, and that females are more successful than males in inducing the transfer of these protein-rich secretions. Furthermore, behavioural observations demonstrated that female beetles do not preferentially interact with a specific age cohort of bees when soliciting food, but males tend to be more discriminant and avoid the more aggressive and active older bees.

Natural biocide disrupts nestmate recognition in honeybees

Honeybee colonies are under the threat of many stressors, biotic and abiotic factors that strongly affect their survival. Recently, great attention has been directed at chemical pesticides, including their effects at sub-lethal doses on bee behaviour and colony success; whereas the potential side effects of natural biocides largely used in agriculture, such as entomopathogenic fungi, have received only marginal attention. Here, we report the impact of the fungus Beauveria bassiana on honeybee nestmate recognition ability, a crucial feature at the basis of colony integrity. We performed both behavioural assays by recording bee guards’ response towards foragers (nestmate or non-nestmate) either exposed to B. bassiana or unexposed presented at the hive entrance, and GC-MS analyses of the cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) of fungus-exposed versus unexposed bees. Our results demonstrated that exposed bees have altered cuticular hydrocarbons and are more easily accepted into foreign colonies than controls. Since CHCs are the main recognition cues in social insects, changes in their composition appear to affect nestmate recognition ability at the colony level. The acceptance of chemically unrecognizable fungus-exposed foragers could therefore favour forager drift and disease spread across colonies.

Arthropods Associate with their Red Wood ant Host without Matching Nestmate Recognition Cues

Social insect colonies provide a valuable resource that attracts and offers shelter to a large community of arthropods. Previous research has suggested that many specialist parasites of social insects chemically mimic their host in order to evade aggression. In the present study, we carry out a systematic study to test how common such chemical deception is across a group of 22 arthropods that are associated with red wood ants (Formica rufa group). In contrast to the examples of chemical mimicry documented in some highly specialized parasites in previous studies, we find that most of the rather unspecialized red wood ant associates surveyed did not use mimicry of the cuticular hydrocarbon recognition cues to evade host detection. Instead, we found that myrmecophiles with lower cuticular hydrocarbon concentrations provoked less host aggression. Therefore, some myrmecophiles with low hydrocarbon concentrations appear to evade host detection via a strategy known as chemical insignificance. Others showed no chemical disguise at all and, instead, relied on behavioral adaptations such as particular defense or evasion tactics, in order to evade host aggression. Overall, this study indicates that unspecialized myrmecophiles do not require the matching of host recognition cues and advanced strategies of chemical mimicry, but can integrate in a hostile ant nest via either chemical insignificance or specific behavioral adaptations.

Striking cuticular hydrocarbon dimorphism in the mason wasp Odynerus spinipes and its possible evolutionary cause (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae, Vespidae)

Cleptoparasitic wasps and bees smuggle their eggs into the nest of a host organism. Here the larvae of the cleptoparasite feed upon the food provision intended for the offspring of the host. As cleptoparasitism incurs a loss of fitness for the host organism (offspring of the host fail to develop), hosts of cleptoparasites are expected to exploit cues that alert them to potential cleptoparasite infestation. Cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) could serve as such cues, as insects inevitably leave traces of them behind when entering a nest. By mimicking the host's CHC profile, cleptoparasites can conceal their presence and evade detection by their host. Previous studies have provided evidence of cleptoparasites mimicking their host's CHC profile. However, the impact of this strategy on the evolution of the host's CHC profile has remained unexplored. Here, we present results from our investigation of a host-cleptoparasite system consisting of a single mason wasp species that serves syntopically as the host to three cuckoo wasp species. We found that the spiny mason wasp (Odynerus spinipes) is able to express two substantially different CHC profiles, each of which is seemingly mimicked by a cleptoparasitic cuckoo wasp (i.e. Chrysis mediata and Pseudospinolia neglecta). The CHC profile of the third cuckoo wasp (Chrysis viridula), a species not expected to benefit from mimicking its host's CHC profile because of its particular oviposition strategy, differs from the two CHC profiles of its host. Our results corroborate the idea that the similarity of the CHC profiles between cleptoparasitic cuckoo wasps and their hosts are the result of chemical mimicry. They further suggest that cleptoparasites may represent a hitherto unappreciated force that drives the evolution of their hosts' CHCs.

Chemical disguise of myrmecophilous cockroaches and its implications for understanding nestmate recognition mechanisms in leaf-cutting ants

BACKGROUND

Cockroaches of the genus Attaphila regularly occur in leaf-cutting ant colonies. The ants farm a fungus that the cockroaches also appear to feed on. Cockroaches disperse between colonies horizontally (via foraging trails) and vertically (attached to queens on their mating flights). We analysed the chemical strategies used by the cockroaches to integrate into colonies of Atta colombica and Acromyrmex octospinosus. Analysing cockroaches from nests of two host species further allowed us to test the hypothesis that nestmate recognition is based on an asymmetric mechanism. Specifically, we test the U-present nestmate recognition model, which assumes that detection of undesirable cues (non-nestmate specific substances) leads to strong rejection of the cue-bearers, while absence of desirable cues (nestmate-specific substances) does not necessarily trigger aggression.

RESULTS

We found that nests of Atta and Acromyrmex contained cockroaches of two different and not yet described Attaphila species. The cockroaches share the cuticular chemical substances of their specific host species and copy their host nest's colony-specific cuticular profile. Indeed, the cockroaches are accepted by nestmate but attacked by non-nestmate ant workers. Cockroaches from Acromyrmex colonies bear a lower concentration of cuticular substances and are less likely to be attacked by non-nestmate ants than cockroaches from Atta colonies.

CONCLUSIONS

Nest-specific recognition of Attaphila cockroaches by host workers in combination with nest-specific cuticular chemical profiles suggest that the cockroaches mimic their host's recognition labels, either by synthesizing nest-specific substances or by substance transfer from ants. Our finding that the cockroach species with lower concentration of cuticular substances receives less aggression by both host species fully supports the U-present nestmate recognition model. Leaf-cutting ant nestmate recognition is thus asymmetric, responding more strongly to differences than to similarities.

Hit-and-run trophallaxis of small hive beetles

Some parasites of social insects are able to exploit the exchange of food between nestmates via trophallaxis, because they are chemically disguised as nestmates. However, a few parasites succeed in trophallactic solicitation although they are attacked by workers. The underlying mechanisms are not well understood. The small hive beetle (=SHB), Aethina tumida, is such a parasite of honey bee, Apis mellifera, colonies and is able to induce trophallaxis. Here, we investigate whether SHB trophallactic solicitation is innate and affected by sex and experience. We quantified characteristics of the trophallactic solicitation in SHBs from laboratory‐reared individuals that were either bee‐naïve or had 5 days experience. The data clearly show that SHB trophallactic solicitation is innate and further suggest that it can be influenced by both experience and sex. Inexperienced SHB males begged more often than any of the other groups had longer breaks than their experienced counterparts and a longer soliciting duration than both experienced SHB males and females, suggesting that they start rather slowly and gain more from experience. Successful experienced females and males were not significantly different from each other in relation to successful trophallactic interactions, but had a significantly shorter soliciting duration compared to all other groups, except successful inexperienced females. Trophallactic solicitation success, feeding duration and begging duration were not significantly affected by either SHB sex or experience, supporting the notion that these behaviors are important for survival in host colonies. Overall, success seems to be governed by quality rather than quantity of interactions, thereby probably limiting both SHB energy investment and chance of injury (<1%). Trophallactic solicitation by SHBs is a singular example for an alternative strategy to exploit insect societies without requiring chemical disguise. Hit‐and‐run trophallaxis is an attractive test system to get an insight into trophallaxis in the social insects.