Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (26)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kunze, J.
Right arrow Articles by Gumbert, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kunze, J.
Right arrow Articles by Gumbert, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 12 No. 4: 447-456
© 2001 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

The combined effect of color and odor on flower choice behavior of bumble bees in flower mimicry systems

Jan Kunze and Andreas Gumbert

Institut für Biologie—AG Neurobiologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 28/30, D-14195 Berlin, Germany

Address correspondence to A. Gumbert, who is now at Institut für Neurobiologie, Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf, Universitätsstr. 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany. E-mail: andreas.gumbert{at}uni-duesseldorf.de .

Food-deceptive flowers are pollinated by animals that expect a reward but are cheated. Such plants profit from their similarity to rewarding plants and should develop signals that hinder discrimination. We use artificial rewarding model flowers and nonrewarding mimicking flowers that present similar visual cues. We test how additional scent cues change flower choice of the mimic by bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) in two situations: (1) both flower types are simultaneously present and can be compared by the pollinator, and (2) both flower types are encountered successively in the absence of each other. We find that in situation 1, discrimination learning is greater if scents are used as cues for identifying the mimic, whether the mimic has a different scent or if it is scentless while the model is scented. In situation 2, a generalization task, a scented mimic is avoided faster than a scentless one. Discrimination of the mimic is poorest if it has the same scent as the model, thus demonstrating a potential for scent mimicry, which has not yet been proved to exist among differently rewarding flowers. Thus, the best strategy for a mimic would be to have the same scent as the model, but this strategy may not be used due to evolutionary constraints. Alternatively, if there are several potential models, then having no scent would be a better strategy than mimicking just one of the models. In situation 1 flower discrimination by color cues is enhanced in the mere presence of scent, compared to unscented controls, even if the scent does not provide a distinguishable cue itself. The results indicate that the presence of scent may enhance color discrimination by improving attention towards visual cues and/or that combined color/odor cues may lead to better memory formation and retrieval.

Key words: Bombus terrestris, learning, memory, nonrewarding flowers, scentless.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
K. L. Cheney
The role of avoidance learning in an aggressive mimicry system
Behav. Ecol., February 27, 2008; (2008) arn001v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
C. G. Galizia, J. Kunze, A. Gumbert, A.-K. Borg-Karlson, S. Sachse, C. Markl, and R. Menzel
Relationship of visual and olfactory signal parameters in a food-deceptive flower mimicry system
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2005; 16(1): 159 - 168.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
A. M. Heiling, K. Cheng, and M. E. Herberstein
Exploitation of floral signals by crab spiders (Thomisus spectabilis, Thomisidae)
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2004; 15(2): 321 - 326.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.