Recognition of flowers by pollinators

Current Opinion in Plant Biology

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 428-435

  Chittka, Lars ^a   Raine, Nigel E ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BEE; FLOWER; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; ODOR; PHYSIOLOGY; REVIEW; VISION;

ANIMALS; BEES; FLOWERS; ODORS; VISION; VISION, OCULAR;

APOIDEA; MAGNOLIOPHYTA;

EID: 33745219626     PISSN: 13695266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbi.2006.05.002     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Giurfa M., and Lehrer M. Honeybee vision and floral displays: from detection to close-up recognition. In: Chittka L., and Thomson J.D. (Eds). Cognitive Ecology of Pollination (2001), Cambridge University Press 61-82
2. Horridge A. What the honeybee sees: a review of the recognition system of Apis mellifera. Physiol Entomol 30 (2005) 2-13
3. Scheiner R., Kuritz-Kaiser A., Menzel R., and Erber J. Sensory responsiveness and the effects of equal subjective rewards on tactile learning and memory of honeybees. Learn Mem 12 (2005) 626-635
4. Shafir S., Bechar A., and Weber E.E. Cognition-mediated coevolution - context-dependent evaluations and sensitivity of pollinators to variability in nectar rewards. Plant Syst Evol 238 (2003) 195-209
5. In: Waser N.M., and Ollerton J. (Eds). Plant-Pollinator Interactions (2006), University of Chicago Press
6. Rodriguez-Girones M.A., and Santamaria L. Why are so many bird flowers red?. PLoS Biol 2 (2004) e350
7. Comba L., Corbet S.A., Hunt H., Outram S., Parker J.S., and Glover B.J. The role of genes influencing the corolla in pollination of Antirrhinum majus. Plant Cell Environ 23 (2000) 639-647
8. Waser N.M., and Price M.V. The effect of nectar guides on pollinator preference: experimental studies with a montane herb. Oecologia 67 (1985) 121-126
9. Gumbert A., Kunze J., and Chittka L. Floral color diversity in plant communities, bee color space and a null model. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266 (1999) 1711-1716
10. Galizia C.G., Kunze J., Gumbert A., Borg-Karlson A.K., Sachse S., Markl C., and Menzel R. Relationship of visual and olfactory signal parameters in a food-deceptive flower mimicry system. Behav Ecol 16 (2005) 159-168. The authors present the first assessment of visual and olfactory similarity between model and mimic in a putative Batesian floral mimicry system as perceived by a bee pollinator. Bees perceive visual but not olfactory similarity between the mimic (Orchis israelitica) and rewarding model (Bellevalia flexuosa).
11. Spaethe J., and Chittka L. Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. J Exp Biol 206 (2003) 3447-3453
12. Land M.F. The optical structures of animal eyes. Curr Biol 15 (2005) R319-R323
13. Spaethe J., Tautz J., and Chittka L. Visual constraints in foraging bumblebees: flower size and color affect search time and flight behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98 (2001) 3898-3903
14. Waser N., and Chittka L. Bedazzled by flowers. Nature 394 (1998) 835-836
15. Menzel R., and Backhaus W. Color vision in insects. In: Gouras P. (Ed). The Perception of Color (1991), Macmillan Press 262-293
16. Wakakuwa M., Kurasawa M., Giurfa M., and Arikawa K. Spectral heterogeneity of honeybee ommatidia. Naturwissenschaften 92 (2005) 464-467
17. Spaethe J., and Briscoe A.D. Molecular characterization and expression of the UV opsin in bumblebees: three ommatidial subtypes in the retina and a new photoreceptor organ in the lamina. J Exp Biol 208 (2005) 2347-2361
18. Yang E.C., Lin H.C., and Hung Y.S. Patterns of chromatic information processing in the lobula of the honeybee, Apis mellifera L. J Insect Physiol 50 (2004) 913-925
19. Chittka L., and Brockmann A. Perception space - the final frontier. PLoS Biol 3 (2005) e137. The authors compare perceptual spaces in a variety of different sensory modalities. The dimensionality and metrics in audition, color vision and olfaction differ fundamentally. Likewise, stimulus mixtures are processed very differently in different modalities, in accordance with underlying neuronal processing.
20. Lotto R.B., and Chittka L. Seeing the light: illumination as a contextual cue to color choice behavior in bumblebees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 3852-3856
21. Guerrieri F., Schubert M., Sandoz J.C., and Giurfa M. Perceptual and neural olfactory similarity in honeybees. PLoS Biol 3 (2005) e60. By training bees to associate a multitude of scents with food, and then measuring their discrimination against other scents, Guerrieri et al. were able to decipher the olfactory code of the honeybee brain. They found that the olfactory system is able to order scents by their chemical properties (e.g. carbon chain length) and derived an olfactory perceptual space for honeybees from these similarity judgments.
22. Galan R.F., Weidert M., Menzel R., Herz A.V.M., and Galizia C.G. Sensory memory for odors is encoded in spontaneous correlated activity between olfactory glomeruli. Neural Comput 18 (2006) 10-25
23. Chittka L., Dyer A.G., Bock F., and Dornhaus A. Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy. Nature 424 (2003) 388
24. Dyer A.G., and Chittka L. Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) sacrifice foraging speed to solve difficult color discrimination tasks. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 190 (2004) 759-763
25. Burns J.G. Impulsive bees forage better: the advantage of quick, sometimes inaccurate foraging decisions. Anim Behav 70 (2005) e1-e5. This work highlights the fact that animals can benefit from making rapid decisions at the expense of choice accuracy. The author concludes that bees making fast, relatively inaccurate decisions would collect nectar at a higher rate than bees taking longer to make more accurate decisions when flower handling times are low.
26. Lynn S.K., Cnaani J., and Papaj D.R. Peak shift discrimination learning as a mechanism of signal evolution. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 59 (2005) 1300-1305. This paper proposes a widespread role for peak shift phenomena in influencing signal evolution. Bees exhibited peak shift, preferentially visiting novel artificial flower colors over previously rewarded stimuli in a laboratory discrimination learning task. The authors suggest that this could be a strategy to reduce the risk of flower-type misidentification.
27. Heiling A.M., Herberstein M.E., and Chittka L. Pollinator attraction - crab-spiders manipulate flower signals. Nature 421 (2003) 334
28. Jansson L., and Enquist M. Testing the receiver bias hypothesis empirically with 'virtual evolution'. Anim Behav 70 (2005) 865-875
29. Dukas R. Causes and consequences of limited attention. Brain Behav Evol 63 (2004) 197-210
30. von Campenhausen C. Die Sinne des Menschen. Georg Thieme Verlag; 1993. [Title translation: The senses of humans.].
31. van Swinderen B., and Greenspan R.J. Salience modulates 20-30 Hz activity in Drosophila. Nat Neurosci 6 (2003) 579-586
32. Spaethe J., Tautz J., and Chittka L. Do honeybees detect color targets using serial or parallel visual search?. J Exp Biol 209 (2006) 987-993. The concept of visual search is applied to an insect. The authors show that search efficiency for a target is substantially affected by the number and types of distractors present in a display. This is because bees examine all stimuli sequentially rather than in parallel. This should have fundamental implications for flower search in nature.
33. Raine N.E., and Chittka L. Comparison of flower constancy and foraging performance in three bumblebee species (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus). Entomologia Generalis 28 (2005) 81-89
34. Chittka L., Gumbert A., and Kunze J. Foraging dynamics of bumble bees: correlates of movements within and between plant species. Behav Ecol 8 (1997) 239-249
35. Menzel R. Behavioral and neural mechanisms of learning and memory as determinants of flower constancy. In: Chittka L., and Thomson J.D. (Eds). Cognitive Ecology of Pollination (2001), Cambridge University Press 21-40
36. Zhang S., Bock F., Si A., Tautz J., and Srinivasan M.V. Visual working memory in decision making by honey bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 5250-5255. The authors demonstrate that bees have a robust working memory, which can retain sample patterns for up to 5 seconds in delayed match to sample tests. These dynamics are remarkably similar to those exhibited by bees foraging from natural flowers. Bees can also learn to ignore a 'distractor' pattern placed between the relevant sample and the decision chamber.
37. Chittka L., and Schürkens S. Successful invasion of a floral market. Nature 411 (2001) 653
38. Roy B.A., and Widmer A. Floral mimicry: a fascinating yet poorly understood phenomenon. Trends Plant Sci 4 (1999) 325-330
39. Gigord L.D.B., Macnair M.R., and Smithson A. Negative frequency-dependent selection maintains a dramatic flower color polymorphism in the rewardless orchid Dactylorhiza sambucina (L.) Soó. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98 (2001) 6253-6255
40. Kunze J., and Gumbert A. The combined effect of color and odor on flower choice behavior of bumble bees in flower mimicry systems. Behav Ecol 12 (2001) 447-456
41. Saleh N., Ohashi K., Thomson J.D., and Chittka L. Facultative use of repellent scent mark in foraging bumblebees: complex versus simple flowers. Anim Behav 71 (2006) 847-854
42. Dafni A., and Ivry Y. Floral mimicry between Orchis israelitica Baumann and Dafni (Orchidaceae) and Bellevalia flexuosa Boiss. (Liliaceae). Oecologia 49 (1981) 229-232
43. Chittka L., Ings T.C., and Raine N.E. Chance and adaptation in the evolution of island bumblebee behaviour. Popul Ecol 46 (2004) 243-251
44. Hamilton W.D., and Brown S.P. Autumn tree colours as a handicap signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 268 (2001) 1489-1493
45. Bernays E.A. Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: Implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annu Rev Entomology 46 (2001) 703-727
46. Heiling A.M., and Herberstein M.E. Predator-prey coevolution: Australian native bees avoid their spider predators. Proc R Soc Lond B 271 (2004) S196-S198