Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
The honey bee is the most frequently used species in pollination services for diverse crops. In onion crops (Allium cepa L.), however, bees avoid visiting certain varieties, being attracted differently to male sterile (MS) and fertile (OP) lines. These differences might be based on the phenolic profiles of the cultivars’ nectars. To understand the relationship between nectar composition and pollinator attraction to different onion lines, we tested sensory [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorGatica Hernandez, Ismaél Jairo Gabriel
dc.contributor.authorPalottini, Florencia
dc.contributor.authorMacri, Ivana
dc.contributor.authorGalmarini, Claudio Romulo
dc.contributor.authorFarina, Walter Marcelo
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-17T12:51:26Z
dc.date.available2019-04-17T12:51:26Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn0022-0949
dc.identifier.issn1477-9145 (Online)
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.189910
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/4929
dc.identifier.urihttp://jeb.biologists.org/content/222/2/jeb189910
dc.description.abstractThe honey bee is the most frequently used species in pollination services for diverse crops. In onion crops (Allium cepa L.), however, bees avoid visiting certain varieties, being attracted differently to male sterile (MS) and fertile (OP) lines. These differences might be based on the phenolic profiles of the cultivars’ nectars. To understand the relationship between nectar composition and pollinator attraction to different onion lines, we tested sensory and cognitive abilities and palatability in honey bees exposed to MS and OP onion nectars and sugar solutions mimicking them. We evaluated the proboscis extension response (PER) after antennal contact (unconditioned response) to MS or OP onion nectars, finding no statistical differences, which denotes similar gustatory perception for both nectars. We also performed food uptake assays to test palatability of different artificial nectars, considering their flavonoids and potassium content. The presence of potassium decreased palatability of the artificial nectars. Finally, we evaluated the beeś cognitive abilities when the reward (unconditioned stimulus, US) offered during conditioning PER assays presents differences in composition. We found that potassium by itself impaired learning; however, such impairment was even higher when naringenin and quercetin were added in the US (MS mimic nectar). Interestingly, potassium together with luteolin (OP mimic nectar) improved learning. Our study demonstrates that the differences in the nectars’ flavonoid profiles combined with their high potassium content could explain the previously reported differences in attractiveness between onion lines, suggesting an important role of nectar-compounds other than sugars for the attractiveness of flowers to pollinators.es_AR
dc.formatapplication/pdfeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherCompany of Biologists
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesseng
dc.sourceJournal of experimental biology 222 (2) : jeb.189910. (January 2019)eng
dc.subjectApis Melliferaes_AR
dc.subjectComportamiento Animales_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Behavioureng
dc.subjectApetitoes_AR
dc.subjectAppetiteeng
dc.subjectNéctares_AR
dc.subjectOlfactioneng
dc.subjectOlfacciónes_AR
dc.subjectPhenolic Compoundseng
dc.subjectCompuestos Fenólicoses_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Feedingeng
dc.subjectAlimentación de los Animaleses_AR
dc.subjectFlavonoidseng
dc.subjectFlavonoideses_AR
dc.subjectPollinationeng
dc.subjectPolinizaciónes_AR
dc.subject.otherOlfactory Learningeng
dc.subject.otherResponsivenesseng
dc.titleAppetitive behavior of the honey bee Apis mellifera in response to phenolic compounds naturally found in nectarseng
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleeng
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioneng
dc.description.origenEEA La Consultaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Gatica Hernandez, Ismaél Jairo Gabriel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria La Consulta; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Palottini, Florencia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental. Laboratorio de Fisiología de Insectos; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Macri, Ivana. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental. Laboratorio de Fisiología de Insectos; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Ingenierıá Rural; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Galmarini, Claudio Romulo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria La Consulta; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Farina, Walter Marcelo. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental. Laboratorio de Fisiología de Insectos; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record