Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C

A Journal of Biosciences

Editor-in-Chief: Seibel, Jürgen

Editorial Board: Aigner , Achim / Boland, Wilhelm / Bornscheuer, Uwe / Hoffmann, Klaus


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.000

CiteScore 2018: 0.99

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.246
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.437

Online
ISSN
1865-7125
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 74, Issue 9-10

Issues

Sexual attraction: a review of bumblebee male pheromones

Irena ValterováORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5723-6143
  • Corresponding author
  • Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Flemingovo nám 2, CZ-166 10 Prague, Czech Republic
  • Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamýcká 129, CZ-165 21 Prague, Czech Republic
  • orcid.org/0000-0001-5723-6143
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Baptiste Martinet
  • Laboratory of Zoology, Research Institute of Biosciences, University of Mons, Place du Parc 20, 7000 Mons, Belgium
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Denis Michez
  • Laboratory of Zoology, Research Institute of Biosciences, University of Mons, Place du Parc 20, 7000 Mons, Belgium
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Pierre Rasmont
  • Laboratory of Zoology, Research Institute of Biosciences, University of Mons, Place du Parc 20, 7000 Mons, Belgium
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Nicolas Brasero
  • Corresponding author
  • Laboratory of Zoology, Research Institute of Biosciences, University of Mons, Place du Parc 20, 7000 Mons, Belgium
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-08-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2019-0003

Abstract

Males of many bumblebee species exhibit a conspicuous pre-mating behavior with two distinct behavioral components: scent marking and patrol flying. The marking pheromone is produced by the cephalic part of the labial gland (CLG). As far as is known, the CLG secretion is species specific, and it usually consists of two types of compounds: (i) straight-chain aliphatic alcohols, aldehydes or esters, and (ii) acyclic mono-, sesqui- and diterpenes (alcohols or acetates). Here, we summarize data from the literature reporting chemical composition of the CLG secretions of more than 80 bumblebee species. Similarities and differences within and between subgenera are discussed in the context of biosynthetic pathways and evolution.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: Bombus; bumblebee males; chemical composition; marking pheromone; sex communication

1 Introduction to bumblebees

Organization and communication in social bees have interested researchers for a long time. The most studied among them is the domesticated Western honeybee, Apis mellifera. However, less is known about the primitive eusocial species (i.e. species having a solitary phase in their life cycle), such as bumblebees, but in the last two decades, the attention of scientists turned toward this group. Many scientists worldwide study the biology, social organization, chemical communication, genetics and evolution of the bumblebee species. Thus, our knowledge on all aspects of the bumblebee life increased substantially. All bumblebees are included in the tribe Bombini [1]. This tribe forms a monophyletic group of over extant 250 species and a few fossil ones [2], [3]. A system of subgenera has been widely used for nearly a century to communicate ideas of relationships among bumblebee species. However, with 38 subgenera, the system was too complicated. Therefore, using a new strongly supported estimate of phylogeny for almost all bumblebee species, the subgeneric system has been reduced to 15 subgenera [4]. At the species level, the tribe Bombini is a taxonomically confused group. Indeed, the morphological homogeneity encountered in bumblebees remains an important obstacle to their identification. In addition, the difficulty is accentuated in the case of cryptic species [5], [6], regional chromatic convergences [7], [8], [9] or high intraspecific variability [10].

Bumblebees are large organisms compared to most other species of bees [11]. These endothermic animals are covered with a thick and dense plumose fur, which in addition to capture pollen, allows them to be extremely well adapted to cold regions [12]. They are present on all continents except Antarctica, Oceania and sub-Saharan Africa [2] (Figure 1). However, some parts of the globe, such as New Zealand and Tasmania, have been invaded by Bombus terrestris, a species raised and marketed around the world [13].

Original distribution of the Bombus genus around the world (yellow). In red, the regions where B. terrestris was imported (from Williams [2]).
Figure 1:

Original distribution of the Bombus genus around the world (yellow). In red, the regions where B. terrestris was imported (from Williams [2]).

Bumblebees are haplo-diploid animals, where males (haploids) and queens (diploids) provide the reproductive role and where workers (diploids) maintain the colony in the free-living species [12], [14], [15]. An overwintering queen starts alone the establishment of the nest. She forages on the pollen and nectar to provide resources to the first batch of larvae. At the beginning of the colony cycle, the queen exercises control over all the workers in terms of inhibition of the development of their ovaries [16]. Many attempts were done to find the source and structure of the queen pheromone in bumblebees, e.g. [17], [18]. The mandibular gland was long considered a source of inhibiting signal, but a reinvestigation by Bloch and Hefetz [19] has not confirmed the role of any queen’s gland in ovary inhibition of workers. The behavior of the queen seems to be crucial at this point [20], [21]. Although n-pentacosane was reported as a putative queen pheromone in B. terrestris and claimed a conserved signal in bumblebees [22], later studies did not prove the effect of neither this compound nor the body extracts in Bombus impatiens [23], [24], [25].

After the so-called “switch-point” at the time of the colony’s sexual maturation [26], [27], [28], new queens and males emerge and leave the colony. The males perform their courtship display and mate with the virgin queens. In the non-tropical areas, the freshly fertilized queens dig and insulate themselves in a hibernaculum for overwintering until the following spring.

The success of social insects largely comes from their ability to accumulate and store large amounts of food resources through a very elaborate division of labor. This considerable energy cost has favored the evolution of parasitic species, which aim to divert this joint effort in their own interest [29]. They exploit their hosts for the rearing of their offspring and, thus, use most of their energy for reproduction [30]. Within bumblebees, some species evolved into nest social parasites called cuckoo bumblebees (or inquilines). With the aim of usurping their guests, these social parasites have adapted physiologically (no worker castes, important number of ovarioles and atrophied wax gland) and morphologically (lack of pollen baskets, larger mandibles, fusion of the intersegment membranes, a sting connected to more powerful muscles and a larger venom gland) [15], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Moreover, they have also managed to overcome the sophisticated recognition systems of their hosts (pheromones and specific cuticular hydrocarbon signatures) [32], [37], [38], [39].

2 Pre-mating behavior of bumblebees, chemical communication and pheromones

The encounter between sexual partners is essential in animal reproduction. This encounter and the choice of sexual partners are achieved through a courtship behavior that involves one or more reproductive traits such as secreting semiochemicals [40], [41]. In bumblebees, these secretions are the main signal for pre-copulatory recognition [9], [42]. It is not common to observe mating of bumblebees in the field. However, the pre-copulatory behavior of males is easily observable, and many studies have shown distinct strategies including (i) scent marking, (ii) patrol flying and (iii) nest entrance awaiting [43]. The eco-climatic conditions in which the different species live could explain why one strategy dominates over another. Patrolling behavior is the far most common pre-mating strategy among bumblebee species including cuckoo bumblebees. Males establish flight paths in which they mark leaves, branches or stones with their cephalic labial gland (CLG) secretions to attract virgin queens. The spatial location of secretions is species specific [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Males mark their spots in the morning and during the day; they fly from one spot to another and inspect the scent marks.

Perching behavior is less common in bumblebees. This territorial strategy is represented by males waiting at prominent objects (perches) in order to see and approach virgin queens [8]. Species that have adopted this strategy have typically very large eyes [50]. This morphological adaptation does not seem to enable them to distinguish a bumblebee queen from other flying insects [15]. This strategy has been described in several species of subgenera Bombias, Cullumanobombus and Mendacibombus. Beside the optical orientation of males, males use a pheromone, too. They mark their perches (usually 1–3, average: 3.7 per male) [51] with the CLG secretion to increase the efficiency of pre-mating strategy and the probability of encountering a conspecific female. The marking is done in the morning and later in the day; males sit on their marked perches and dart at all passing objects [51]. The composition of the CLG secretion has been described in several perching species and the exclusive optical orientation of males has been disproved.

The third type of pre-mating behavior has been described for males awaiting emerging gynes right at a nest entrance. This strategy was reported for some Thoracobombus and Subterraneobombus species, occurring in Europe or North America. In late mornings or early afternoons, males sit on the ground and survey the nest. As soon as a virgin queen comes out of the nest, males fight with each other and some may even chase the queen inside the nest to mate [15]. Aggressive interactions between males have been observed [52]. Recently, a study of genetic divergences (microsatellites) has shown that males around nests came from other colonies [53]. In species using this pre-mating strategy, scent marking has not been observed. However, the males’ labial gland produces a secretion in a concentration comparable with patrolling species, and its components resemble those present commonly in CLG secretions [51], [54]. The role of the secretion in this strategy has not been explained yet.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the significant role of chemical signals in intra- and interspecific communication in bumblebees, both inside and outside the colony [55]. All three pre-mating behavioral strategies described above are related to CLG secretion. The secretion plays a role in sexual attraction and species isolation. It functions as a territorial marking pheromone as well as the male sex pheromone. The pheromone-marked places attract conspecific females for mating [56]. The marking pheromone functions both as an attractant and an arrestant for females and, moreover, as a short-term aphrodisiac for males themselves [45]. This pheromone is produced by a paired acinar gland in the head, the cephalic part of the labial gland [57], [58], [59]. The glands occupy more than half of the volume of the head (Figure 2A and B). It is secreted at the base of mandibles through an excretory duct [58], [60], [61].

(A) Drawing of a B. lapidarius’ (Melanobombus subgenus) head from the front view. The cuticle and the eye on the left side were removed to reveal the CLG and the mandibular gland (MG). The bursa (B), which receives in particular the secretions of the CLG, as well as the terminal excretory duct (TEC) are visible. (B) Cut in the acini that makes up the CLG. Acini light (L) and secretory vesicles (V) are shown (from Ågren et al. [58] and Terzo et al. [60]).
Figure 2:

(A) Drawing of a B. lapidarius’ (Melanobombus subgenus) head from the front view. The cuticle and the eye on the left side were removed to reveal the CLG and the mandibular gland (MG). The bursa (B), which receives in particular the secretions of the CLG, as well as the terminal excretory duct (TEC) are visible. (B) Cut in the acini that makes up the CLG. Acini light (L) and secretory vesicles (V) are shown (from Ågren et al. [58] and Terzo et al. [60]).

Despite many papers describing the chemical composition of the male CLG secretion, there are only a few reports proving the behavioral role in a bioassay. It has been shown that males deposit the CLG secretion on the vegetation or other prominent objects [51], [56], [59]. In a dual-choice test, Bergman showed that virgin B. terrestris queens were able to distinguish between the scent emitted by conspecific and heterospecific males. Lecocq et al. [62] showed that virgin queens were more attracted to CLG secretions of the same subspecies (B. terrestris dalmatinus) than to other B. terrestris subspecies. The attractiveness of males for virgin females changes with the males’ age. Among the individuals 1–30 days old, the 10-day-old males of B. terrestris were the most attractive in bioassays [63]. It is still unclear whether the attraction is based on one or several secretion components, or whether the mixture of compounds in specific proportions is the cue for queens. Different volatiles were tested for electroantennographic detection (EAD) responses of queens’, males’ and workers’ antennae. The antennae of workers and males responded equally, while the queens’ antennae showed selectivity in perception [64]. Later, active components of the CLG secretion were found by means of gas chromatography (GC)/EAD in B. terrestris and Bombus lucorum [61], [65]. The queens’ antennae responded to the most volatile fraction of the secretion represented by main and medium-abundant components. The role of less-volatile components in communication has not been clarified.

Very little is known about the chemical signals of young females showing their receptivity for mating. Vanhonk et al. [66] reported that the mandibular secretion of young virgin queens contains a sex pheromone that induces mating behavior of conspecific males. The composition of secretions of three different glands of virgin females of five bumblebee species has been published [67], however, without evidence of biological effect of the identified components. More details for B. terrestris were given by Krieger et al. [68], who identified several antennally and behaviorally active components of the body surface and cephalic extract of virgin queens. The active compounds were fatty acids and their esters. Geranylgeraniol was the only isoprenoid showing some activity. 3-Oxo- and 3-hydroxydecanoic acids were present in both body and cephalic extracts [68]. (S)-3-hydroxydecanoic acid was later found in the mandibular gland of B. terrestris queens as one of the medium-abundant components [69]. Its amount in the secretion changes substantially with the age of queens (as opposed to octadec-9-enoic acid, the main component of the mandibular gland secretion), reaching a maximum between 5- and 8-day-old queens [69]. Hydroxy- and oxo-acids may, thus, be candidates for further studies on female sex pheromone in bumblebees. According to Krieger et al. [68], testing a mixture of the EAG active compounds in the corresponding concentration did not reach a full effect on males as living queens. Thus, there might also be other cues necessary to stimulate males for mating, such as visual cues.

3 Intraspecific variability of CLG secretions

Several studies highlighted the intraspecific variability of CLG secretions in bumblebees. These studies have focused on the temporal variation of these secretions during the life span of bumblebees [58], [65], [70]. Ågren and co-workers [58] were the first to show variations in the concentration of CLG during the life of some species such as Bombus (Melanobombus) lapidarius, Bombus (Pyrobombus) hypnorum and Bombus (Megabombus) hortorum. The CLG concentration increases up to the fourth day of the male’s life. Forty years later, Žáček and co-workers [65] were able to demonstrate that the concentration of secretion reaches its maximum 7 days after the emergence of individuals. In B. (Bombus) terrestris, after these 7 days, the concentration decreases very quickly, while it remains fairly stable in B. (Bombus) lucorum [65]. These differences were explained by the apoptosis of the secretory cells of the CLGs of males [61]. The cell death begins on the fifth day in B. terrestris, whereas in B. lucorum, the secretory cells remain functional throughout life [65]. The explanation might be in the type of pheromonal components, among which some compounds such as isoprenoids at high concentration may activate the apoptosis of the secretory cells. This was earlier shown for farnesol, which induces cell apoptosis in different organisms including humans [71], [72], [73], [74].

Šobotník and co-workers [61] measured responses of queens to CLG secretions of males of different ages by electroantennography recordings. Although each secretion elicited a response, maximal sensitivity was observed for extracts of glands 2–10 days old. Older gland extracts gradually lose their effectiveness. Coppée and co-workers [63] confirmed the attractiveness in B. terrestris females in bioassays. Virgin queens were significantly more attracted to gland extracts of 7-day-old males than to younger or older ones. Although some authors [75], [76] considered male CLG secretions to be invariable between individuals of the same species, local intraspecific differentiations have been observed by other authors among widespread species such as Bombus (Thoracobombus) ruderarius [77], Bombus (Pyrobombus) monticola [78], Bombus (Thoracobombus) pascuorum [10] and B. (Bombus) terrestris [70]. In B. ruderarius, the CLG secretion was compared for two earlier distinguished subspecies, B. ruderarius ruderarius and B. ruderarius montanus. These subspecies differ substantially in coloration, but the composition in the CLG secretion is not significantly different [77]. Thus, the two subspecies occurring in the Pyrenees are recommended to be regarded as forms of a single population rather than subspecies [77]. Similarly for B. pascuorum, in which 24 subspecies were reported earlier, the taxonomy was simplified to four subspecies groups based on genetic differentiation, color pattern, geographic distribution and analysis of CLG secretions [10]. On the other hand, a revision of the B. monticola complex (occurring in the South European mountains and in the Arctic regions) led to its separation into three species, Bombus conradini, occurring in the Central Apennine mountains, five subspecies of B. monticola distributed in the North Apennine mountains, and Bombus lapponicus in the Arctic regions. In B. terrestris, six subspecies were compared, including those isolated geographically (e.g. B. terrestris canariensis) [70]. Some subspecies could not be distinguished based on the CLG secretion (B. terrestris terrestris and B. terrestris lusitanicus). The different chemical composition was directly connected to different attractiveness of the CLG extracts for queens [62]. Virgin queens preferred extracts from males of the same subspecies [62].

4 Chemical composition of male marking secretions: interspecific differences

The chemical nature of the males’ marking pheromones has been studied extensively. The research in this field started in Scandinavia [44], [75], [79], and it was followed by many studies of the Middle and West European bumblebee species later [77], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. Recently, reports on CLG secretion of the South and Central American bumblebees [86], [87] as well as of the Japanese species [88], [89] were published. At present, the pheromones of more than 80 bumblebee species are known (i.e. 30% of the described species) [9], [55], [85], [86], [87], 90], [91], [92] (Table 1 and the Supplementary Table S1).

Table 1:

Abundance of main components in the male CLG secretion.

As far as is known, each bumblebee species produces a specific blend of compounds (reviews [55], [90], [120], [121]). Bergström and co-workers also studied the temporal and spatial segregation between species and subspecies [93], [110]. Except for the geographical isolation, species patrolling in the same area segregate to some extent in time and space. Species occurring in the same time and habitat differ substantially in the composition of their marking pheromone to avoid interspecies mating. These differences were also used for chemotaxonomical purposes [122]. There is still no report in the literature on the identical composition of the CLG secretions in two different species. Interspecific differentiation is always more important than intraspecific variability.

The gland secretion contains mostly two types of compounds: (i) straight-chain saturated and unsaturated aliphatic alcohols, aldehydes, esters, rarely hydrocarbons with the chain length C12–C18, and (ii) acyclic mono-, sesqui- and diterpenes (alcohols, aldehydes or acetates). The secretions usually contain few main components and a number of lower-abundant or minor components. Beside the main components usually present in milligram quantities per gland of an adult male, unbranched alkanes and alkenes occur in the secretion forming 6%–15% of the mixture, exceptionally in higher proportions. These hydrocarbons are not species specific (odd-numbered chains C23 or C25 usually prevail with double bonds of alkenes located in position 7 or 9), and they are suspected not to play a role in the communication. When antennal responses of virgin queens to the secretion components were tested, no activity has been found for these alkanes/alkenes [61], [65]. Older males have a higher proportion of hydrocarbons and a lower proportion of antennally active compounds that are anticipated to function as pheromonal components [63].

The main compounds found in the CLG secretions of known bumblebee species are summarized in Table 1. Only those forming a main component in at least one individual of the taxon are listed. Unfortunately, the older literature does not mention numeric values for the concentration of individual compounds. To overcome the diversity in presenting data in the literature, the amounts in Table 1 are marked as “xxx” (relative amount >30%), “xx” (relative amount between 10% and 30%) and “x” (relative amount <10%). A detailed table with all described compounds and original values (either numeric or just semi-quantitative data) is available as Supplementary data (Table S1). Only components higher than 1% are included in this Supplementary file.

Among the CLG secretion main components, the aliphatic compounds prevail. Octadecen-1-ol is the most common, present in 33 species in substantial quantity. The double bonds are located in position 9 or 11; no other position has been found in octadecenol. The second most common component (in 23 species) is hexadecen-1-ol with double bond position 7 or 9, rarely 11. Icosen-1-ol is common, too, with double bond position 11 or 15. From saturated alcohols, hexadecane-1-ol is the most common, but it usually forms a medium or a minor component only. Other saturated alcohols are rather rare or present in very low proportions.

Unlike in alcohols, hexadecenal is by far most common aldehyde in CLG secretions. Similarly to hexadecenol, the double bond position is usually 7 or 9, in some species also 11. Octadecenal is present in seven species, with the double bonds located in position 9 or 11. In one species only, Bombus wurflenii, ketones have been found. Heptadecan-2-one and a small amount of pentadecan-2-one are the two main components of this species. B. wurflenii is the only species yet analyzed from the subgenus Alpigenobombus. Thus, there is no comparison, so far, for the presence of ketones in the CLG secretion of consubgeneric-related species.

Among esters in the CLG extracts, acetates of aliphatic alcohols and ethyl esters of fatty acids occur most frequently. Tetradecyl acetate and the more frequent hexadecenyl acetate are produced by many species. Also, octadecenyl acetate is rather common. The double bond position in hexadecenyl acetate is mostly 9 (exceptionally 7), and in octadecenyl acetate it is 9 or 11. The regioisomers are thus the same as in alcohols and aldehydes. Ethyl esters of many fatty acids occur in the secretions, but only two of them form main components: ethyl dodecanoate and ethyl tetradecenoate. Ethyl dodecanoate is practically exclusively present in species belonging to the subgenus Bombus sensu stricto, where it is a “diagnostic” or subgenus-specific component shared by all species. Tetradecenyl acetate, with the double bond exclusively in position 9, occurs in the subgenera Bombus sensu stricto and Psithyrus.

An interesting subgenus from the chemical point of view is Megabombus. Analyses of pheromones of four species were published (Table 1). Three of them produce nonadec-9-ene as the main component. We have analyzed CLG samples of three more Megabombus species (Bombus argillaceus, Bombus gerstaeckeri and Bombus portchinsky) and found the same main component (Rasmont, Terzo and Valterová, unpublished results). The only species without nonadecene published so far in this subgenus is Bombus diversus. As was mentioned above, hydrocarbons are usually not considered active pheromonal components. However, in this subgenus, the amount of nonadecene in the labial gland secretions is high and corresponds to usual concentrations of the main components in other bumblebee species. Therefore, nonadec-9-ene might play an important role in the courtship behavior inside this subgenus.

As for isoprenoids, sesqui- and diterpenes usually dominate the CLG secretion. Citronellol was the only monoterpene found, and only four species produced it in a detectable amount. These species belong to different subgenera (Pyrobombus, Alpinobombus and Psithyrus). The low occurrence of monoterpenes might be connected to their higher volatility, which does not suit well to the marking purposes. Marks are usually deposited in the morning and checked by males during the day, but they are not renewed until the next morning [51]. Therefore, less volatile compounds stay on the marks longer and might be advantageous for the marking strategy.

Diterpenic alcohols and their acetates are much more common than mono- or sesquiterpenes among isoprenoids. Geranylgeraniol occurs in 20 species, and so does its acetate. Geranylcitronellol is produced by males of 13 species, and the sesquiterpene 2,3-dihydrofarnesol in 9 species. It is interesting that citronellol, 2,3-dihydrofarnesol [123] and the corresponding aldehyde 2,3-dihydrofarnesal occur in the CLG secretions exclusively as almost pure 3S-isomers (enantiomeric purity >98% S). Samples of the seven species underwent enantioselective GC, and only traces of 3R-enantiomers were detected [113]. Unfortunately, the enantiomeric pairs of diterpenes did not separate on the chiral column; thus, their absolute configuration could not be determined.

When looking at the occurrence of specific pheromonal components within subgenera, we can see a similar composition in some, but a high variability in other subgenera (Table 1). Thus, geranylgeranyl acetate is the main component in all Cullumanobombus and Sibiricobombus subgenera, Thoracobombus and Alpinobombus are characterized by octadecenol and hexadecenol; however, different double bond positions are present in these alcohols in single species. With one exception (Bombus pensylvanicus), no isoprenoids were found in the subgenus Thoracobombus. Species of the subgenera Bombias, Cullumanobombus, Kallobombus, Pyrobombus, Megabombus, Melanobombus, Sibiricobombus and Subterraneobombus use no aliphatic aldehydes for communication. No esters occur among the main components in subgenera Megabombus, Sibiricobombus, Subterraneobombus and Kallobombus (Table 1). Species of the subgenus Psithyrus usually produce more than one main/medium component; the CLG secretion is more complex than that in other subgenera. In Bombus sensu stricto, a “diagnostic” (subgenus-specific) component of the CLG secretion is ethyl dodecanoate, present in all species studied so far (except for the Japanese Bombus ignitus and the Corsican Bombus xanthopus). This compound dominates in some Bombus sensu stricto species, while in others, it is a medium or minor component; additional compound(s) distinguish the species. It seems that closely related species belonging to one subgenus share the same enzymes for producing one subgenus-specific component, and the species that are not separated geographically or otherwise evolved new enzymes and pathways for producing additional pheromonal component(s).

A very particular structure and chemistry of CLGs were found in a small monophyletic group (formerly Rhodobombus) of the Thoracobombus subgenus. By comparing CLGs of four species belonging to this group with those of a well-known species (i.e. B. terrestris), it was found that CLG secretions of these four species were unusual and proportionally reduced [60], [85]], [124]. The CLG extracts contain mainly hydrocarbons, which are also found on the cuticle [85]]. No volatile compounds commonly identified in other species are present in this group [55]. Histological studies have revealed that the CLGs of these species are atrophied and probably non-functional. In addition, morphological structures such as barbae mandibularis, needed for depositing secretions on the substrate, are absent in these species [51], [60]. Thus, males of these species certainly do not use their CLG to attract conspecific females at a distance.

The three basic pre-mating strategies used by bumblebee males are not clearly correlated with the structure of the pheromonal components. While the patrolling behavior is far most common in bumblebees, the number of species whose males perch or wait at the nest entrance is low. No cuckoo bumblebee species has been reported to use any other strategy than patrolling. The perching behavior was described for 11 species of the subgenera Bombias (3 species), Mendacibombus (3 species), Cullumanobombus (2 species), Sibiricobombus (1 species), Melanobombus (1 species) and Alpigenobombus (1 species) [55], [56]. Within other subgenera, no perching species has been reported. The nest waiting strategy has been observed for six species of the genera Thoracobombus (five species) and Subterraneobombus (one species) [56], [125]. Since these species are not frequent and only a few were reported from the chemical point of view compared to the number of patrolling species, it is not possible to see any chemical pattern that would be connected to certain behavioral strategy. Brasero and co-workers [92] came with a hypothesis that patrolling species often use more volatile pheromonal components (C16 derivatives), while nest waiting species produce less volatile components (C18 derivatives). This was, however, observed in the Thoracobombus subgenus only, but it cannot be generalized or simply extended to other subgenera. A similarity in pheromonal components can be seen in related species belonging to certain subgenera (see above), but there is no obvious correlation between the behavioral strategy and chemical composition of the CLG secretion.

5 Biosynthesis of the male marking pheromone components

Based on analysis of compound patterns isolated from 22 bumblebee species, Lanne and co-workers suggested that CLG compounds are produced from saturated fatty acids by the action of specific glandular desaturases [94]. This hypothesis was, however, formulated without any experimental evidence. Later, experiments with 2H-, 13C- and 14C-labeled acetate and fatty acids applied in vitro and in vivo were done [126], [127], [128]. The model species was mainly B. terrestris, species that can be reared in the laboratory, and thus, material of defined age and physiological state can be obtained for experiments. The in vitro experiments proved the formation of both aliphatic and isoprenoid pheromonal components in the CLG [127]. The interpretation of in vivo applications was, however, not unambiguous. There exist two hypotheses on the biosynthesis of aliphatic pheromonal components: (i) de novo formation in the labial gland from acetate units, or (ii) by modification of fatty acids stored in the fat body after their hemolymph transport to the CLG. A mass balance of labeled compounds in feeding experiments supported the transport hypothesis [128]. Thus, the biosynthetic system of the marking pheromone in bumblebee males seems to be very flexible, and the particular active pathway is likely to be controlled by regulatory mechanisms or to depend on the availability of particular substrates.

A transcriptomic approach was used for clarification of the biosynthetic pathways leading to pheromonal components [129]. Next-generation sequencing and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction were used to identify and quantify transcript abundances of genes from the isoprenoid biosynthetic pathway in B. terrestris and B. lucorum. Genes coding the whole set of enzymes needed for isoprenoid synthesis were present in the CLG of both B. terrestris and B. lucorum males, but their expressions differed dramatically. This explains the difference in the pheromone composition. While in B. terrestris, 2,3-dihydrofarnesol is the main component, B. lucorum CLG does not contain any isoprenoids. The expression results, thus, indicate that the biosynthesis of isoprenoids is regulated at the transcriptional level [130]. To generalize, the transcriptional regulation might be the reason why closely related bumblebee species often differ in the main components of the male marking pheromones, and this process might be involved in speciation.

6 Integrated taxonomy of bumblebees

Closely related species are often difficult to distinguish using morphological traits. In bumblebees, some species complexes are especially challenging (e.g. B. lucorum complex) [131]. There have been many attempts to clarify bumblebee taxonomy by using alternative features such as wing shape, DNA or eco-chemical traits [9]. Recent studies have used a multisource approach to gather different lines of evidence in order to draw a strongly supported taxonomic hypothesis in bumblebee species status. Yet, the resulting taxonomic status is not independent of selected evidence and of consensus methodology. Lecocq and co-workers [132] developed integrated methods including geometric morphometry of wing shape, definition of private haplotypes, sequence-based (nuclear/mitochondrial) species delimitation methods (e.g. bGMYC) and diagnostic composition of the CLG secretions. The usefulness of this method has been shown on several taxa such as Bombus barbutellus [119], B. lapidarius group [104], B. monticola [78], [133], B. pascuorum [10], B. terrestris [134] and the subgenus Alpinobombus [115], in which the taxonomy of species and subspecies has been clarified. Thus, the chemical composition of male CLG secretions is of a great help to taxonomists and forms an irreplaceable part of the method of integrated taxonomy of bumblebees.

7 Phylogenetic consideration: does CLG chemistry meet phylogeny?

Data based on CLG secretions associated with a well-resolved phylogeny offer a possibility to study the evolution and the diversification of these compounds. However, as already shown in other insects such as beetles [135], unpublished and preliminary results suggest that there is no clear phylogenetic pattern in bumblebee pheromones, taking into account only main components. Although some types of compounds are diagnostic for some subgenera (i.e. acetates in Cullumanobombus), all these compounds are also found in other subgenera. While some characteristic phylogenetic patterns can be found in several subgenera so far studied, it does not seem to reflect wider relationships. Besides, if the eco-climatic constraint of the environment, which could interact with compounds deposited by bumblebee males, plays a role in the composition or the detection of the CLG secretions, additional character mapping analyses of these reproductive traits would enable us to detect any evolutionary convergences in similar eco-climatic regions (biomes). It is particularly interesting because bumblebees live in most of the biomes defined in our planet. The effect of eco-climatic conditions has been demonstrated in traits directly associated with reproduction in Lepidoptera [136] and also in birds [137], [138]. Several studies are in progress to explore these hypotheses in bumblebees.

According to the latest phylogenetic study based on transcriptomic analyses, bumblebees (Bombini) are closest to stingless bees (Meliponini) [139]. Males of stingless bees are known to aggregate around the nest entrance of conspecific colonies, but no other similarity with bumblebees in behavior or in chemical communication has been reported. Meliponini drones are not known to release any pheromone attractive for conspecific gynes [140].

8 Comparison of bumblebee pre-mating system with other Hymenoptera

The pre-mating behavior of bumblebee males is not unique in insects; it occurs in other Hymenoptera too. Males of the solitary bee Colletes cunicularius wait at the nest entrance to mate the emerging females immediately. In their mandibular gland, both males and females produce (+)-S-linalool, which was shown to be a mate attractant [141]. Males of several Andrena bees patrol areas marked with secretions of their mandibular gland. A broad spectrum of terpenes was identified in different Andrena species. Andrena wilkella produces a specific compound, 2,8-dimethyl-l,7-dioxaspiro[5.5]undecane, that was proved to be of high enantiomeric purity, having (2S,6R,8S) configuration [142]. Male territorial marking has been also described for other solitary bees (genus Centris, monoterpenic alcohols as marking pheromones) [143] and carpenter bees (genus Xylocopa, straight-chain hydrocarbons and fatty acid esters used as marking pheromone, and also, e.g. sesqui- and diterpenic alcohols and aldehydes in Xylocopa varipuncta mesosomal gland) [144].

The digging wasps and bee wolves mark their territories too. Males of several species of decorator wasps (genus Eucerceris) display abdomen-dragging behavior on plants surrounding their nest [145]. The source of marking signal is the mandibular gland, from which the secretion spreads to the brush of hairs present on the clypeus and from there is passed onto hairs arranged along the ventral part of the abdomen. The main secretion component is (Z)-3-hexenyl 3-hydroxybutanoate. Males gather at certain spots to compete for females, which can be characterized as lek behavior. The male beewolfs, solitary hunting wasps (genus Philanthus) use their postpharyngeal gland for territorial marking [146]. The gland has different functions in males and females, and it also differs in the secretion composition, however mostly on the quantitative level.

Males of the stenograstrine wasps, the most primitive among the social wasps, perform rapid flights, stopping on perches where they exhibit special behavior indicating a mark deposited from their abdominal part [147]. The chemistry has not been studied for these insects. In the social wasp Ropalidia marginata, it was believed that cuticular hydrocarbons were involved in sex communication, but the bioassay has not proved this hypothesis [148]. This species does not seem to use any long-distance mate attraction cues. On the other hand, in the paper wasps of the genus Polistes, the existence of the male marking pheromone has been proved in bioassays, but the chemical nature has not been reported [149], [150].

To summarize, one can say that despite a relatively conserved mating tactics in different Hymenoptera families, where male territorial marking is most common, the diversity of glands used by males for marking is broad as well as the chemodiversity of the marking/sex signals.

9 Remarks to the significance of the research

The conservation of native plant communities, as well as of the wider biodiversity, is dependent on pollinators that are currently under threat and often declining. Recent research has focused on losses in managed honeybee colonies and on declines in wild pollinators. Among other factors, the chemodiversity of male marking pheromones ensures the separation of bumblebee species, and thus, it helps the monitoring of biodiversity. It is important to care for healthy and diverse pollinator communities and for the biodiversity of natural species at their natural area of distribution. Furthermore, the similarities/differences in the CLG secretions may also be an inspiration for further research on the evolution of biosynthetic pathways and enzymes participating in the formation of pheromonal components. Specific insect enzymes with unique properties have great biotechnological potential, as shown by Tupec and co-workers [151].

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge all people who contributed to the data acquisition through the different missions in the field. Special thanks go to D. Evrard (University of Mons) and K. Urbanová (University of Life Sciences, Prague) for the maintenance of GC mass spectrometry and GC flame ionization detection and evaluation of the samples. B.M. is a Ph.D. student of F.R.S.-FNRS (Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique). The authors also thank P. Kyjaková (Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry Prague) for her help with the literature database.

References

  • 1.

    Michener C. The bees of the world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Williams PH. An annotated checklist of bumble bees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bull Nat Hist Mus Entomol Ser 1998;67:79–152. Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Prokop J, Dehon M, Michez D, Engel MS. An Early Miocene bumble bee from northern Bohemia (Hymenoptera, Apidae). ZooKeys 2017;710:43–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Williams PH, Cameron SA, Hines HM, Cederberg B, Rasmont P. A simplified subgeneric classification of the bumblebees (genus Bombus). Apidologie 2008;39:46–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Carolan JC, Murray TE, Fitzpatrick Ú, Crossley J, Schmidt H, Cederberg B, et al. Colour patterns do not diagnose species: quantitative evaluation of a DNA barcoded cryptic bumblebee complex. PLoS One 2012;7:e29251. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Williams PH, Brown MJ, Carolan JC, An J, Goulson D, Aytekin AM, et al. Unveiling cryptic species of the bumblebee subgenus Bombus s. str. worldwide with COI barcodes (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Syst Biodivers 2012;10:21–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Plowright RC, Owen RE. The evolutionary significance of bumble bee color patterns: a mimetic interpretation. Evolution 1980;34:622–37. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Williams PH. The bumble bees of the Kashmir Himalaya (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bull Nat Hist Mus Entomol Ser 1991;60:1–204. Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Lecocq T, Brasero N, De Meulemeester T, Michez D, Dellicour S, Lhomme P, et al. An integrative taxonomic approach to assess the status of Corsican bumblebees: implications for conservation. Anim Conserv 2015;18:236–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Lecocq T, Brasero N, Martinet B, Valterova I, Rasmont P. Highly polytypic taxon complex: interspecific and intraspecific integrative taxonomic assessment of the widespread pollinator Bombus pascuorum Scopoli 1763 (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Syst Entomol 2015;40:881–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Gérard M, Vanderplanck M, Franzen M, Kuhlmann M, Potts SG, Rasmont P, et al. Patterns of size variation in bees at a continental scale: does Bergmann’s rule apply? Oikos 2018;127:1095–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Heinrich B. Bumblebee economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Google Scholar

  • 13.

    Rasmont P, Coppée A, Michez D, De Meulemeester T. An overview of the Bombus terrestris (L. 1758) subspecies (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ann Soc Entomol Fr 2008;44:243–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Alford DV. Bumblebees. London: Davis-Poynter, 1975. Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Goulson D. Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand, 2010. Google Scholar

  • 16.

    Conte YL, Hefetz A. Primer pheromones in social hymenoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 2008;53:523–42. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Roseler PF, Roseler I, Vanhonk CG. Evidence for inhibition of corpora allata activity in workers of Bombus terrestris by a pheromone from the queens mandibular glands. Experientia 1981;37:348–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Vanhonk CG, Velthuis HH, Roseler PF, Malotaux ME. The mandibular glands of Bombus terrestris queens as a source of queen pheromones. Entomol Exp Appl 1980;28:191–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Bloch G, Hefetz A. Reevaluation of the role of mandibular glands in regulation of reproduction in bumblebee colonies. J Chem Ecol 1999;25:881–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Padilla M, Amsalem E, Altman N, Hefetz A, Grozinger CM. Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens. Royal Soc Open Sci 2016;3:160576. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    Alaux C, Jaisson P, Hefetz A. Queen influence on worker reproduction in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) colonies. Insectes Soc 2004;51:287–93. Google Scholar

  • 22.

    Van Oystaeyen A, Oliveira RC, Holman L, van Zweden JS, Romero C, Oi CA, et al. Conserved class of queen pheromones stops social insect workers from reproducing. Science 2014;343:287–90. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    Amsalem E, Orlova M, Grozinger Christina M. A conserved class of queen pheromones? Re-evaluating the evidence in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens). Proc R Soc B 2015;282:20151800. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 24.

    Amsalem E, Padilla M, Schreiber PM, Altman NS, Hefetz A, Grozinger CM. Do bumble bee, Bombus impatiens, queens signal their reproductive and mating status to their workers? J Chem Ecol 2017;43:563–72. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    Melgarejo V, Wilson Rankin EE, Loope KJ. Do queen cuticular hydrocarbons inhibit worker reproduction in Bombus impatiens? Insectes Soc 2018;65:601–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 26.

    Duchateau M, Velthuis H. Development and reproductive strategies in Bombus terrestris colonies. Behaviour 1988;107:186–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    Alaux C, Jaisson P, Hefetz A. Regulation of worker reproduction in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): workers eavesdrop on a queen signal. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2006;60:439–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Holland JG, Guidat FS, Bourke AF. Queen control of a key life-history event in a eusocial insect. Biol Lett 2013;9:20130056. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    Roldán M, Soler M. Parental-care parasitism: how do unrelated offspring attain acceptance by foster parents? Behav Ecol 2011;22:679–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 30.

    Nash DR, Boomsma JJ. Communication between hosts and social parasites. In: d’Ettore P, Hughes DP, editors. Sociobiology of communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008:55–79. Google Scholar

  • 31.

    Pouvreau A. Les ennemis des bourdons. I.-Étude d’une zoocénose: le nid de bourdons. Apidologie 1973;4:103–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 32.

    Fisher RM, Sampson BJ. Morphological specializations of the bumble bee social parasite Psithyrus ashtoni (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can Entomol 1992;124:69–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 33.

    Benton T. Bumblebees: The natural history & identification of the species found in Britain. New York: Harper Collins, 2006. Google Scholar

  • 34.

    Sramkova A, Ayasse M. Psithyrus females do possess wax glands. Insectes Soc 2008;55:404–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 35.

    Richards O. A revision of the European bees allied to Psithyrus quadricolor, Lepeletier (Hymenoptera, Bombidae). Trans R Entomol Soc London 1928;76:345–65. Google Scholar

  • 36.

    Lhomme P, Hines HM. Ecology and evolution of cuckoo bumble bees. Ann Entomol Soc Am 2018;112:122–40. Google Scholar

  • 37.

    Martin SJ, Carruthers JM, Williams PH, Drijfhout FP. Host specific social parasites (Psithyrus) indicate chemical recognition system in bumblebees. J Chem Ecol 2010;36:855–63. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 38.

    Lhomme P, Ayasse M, Valterová I, Lecocq T, Rasmont P. A scent shield to survive: Identification of the repellent compounds secreted by the male offspring of the cuckoo bumblebee Bombus vestalis. Entomol Exp Appl 2015;157:263–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 39.

    Dronnet S, Simon X, Verhaeghe J-C, Rasmont P, Errard C. Bumblebee inquilinism in Bombus (Fernaldaepsithyrus) sylvestris (Hymenoptera, Apidae): behavioural and chemical analyses of host-parasite interactions. Apidologie 2005;36:59–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 40.

    Paterson HE, McEvey SF. Evolution and the recognition concept of species: collected writings. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Google Scholar

  • 41.

    Andersson MB. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Google Scholar

  • 42.

    Baer B. Bumblebees as model organisms to study male sexual selection in social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2003;54:521–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 43.

    Lloyd JE. Sexual selection: individuality, identification, and recognition in a bumblebee and other insects. Fla Entomol 1981;64:89–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 44.

    Kullenberg B, Bergstrom G, Ställberg-Stenhagen S. Volatile components of the cephalic marking secretion of male bumble bees. Acta Chem Scand 1970;24:1481–5. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 45.

    Kullenberg B. Field experiments with chemical sexual attractants on aculeate Hymenoptera males, II. Zoon 1973;1:31–42. Google Scholar

  • 46.

    Bringer B. Territorial flight of bumble-bee males in coniferous forest on the northernmost part of the island of Öland. Zoon 1973;1:15–22. Google Scholar

  • 47.

    Svensson BG. Species-isolating mechanisms in male bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae). PhD Thesis. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University, 1980. Google Scholar

  • 48.

    Morse DH. Behaviour and ecology of bumble bees. In: Hermann HR, editor. Social insects. New York: Academic Press, Vol. 3, 1982. Google Scholar

  • 49.

    Mossberg B, Cederberg B. Humlor i Sverige: 40 arter att älska och förundras över. Stockholm: Bonnier Fakta, 2012. Google Scholar

  • 50.

    Streinzer M, Spaethe J. Functional morphology of the visual system and mating strategies in bumblebees (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus). Zool J Linn Soc 2014;170:735–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 51.

    Kindl J, Hovorka O, Urbanová K, Valterová I. Scent marking in male premating behavior of Bombus confusus. J Chem Ecol 1999;25:1489–500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 52.

    Villalobos EM, Shelly TE. Observations on the behavior of male Bombus sonorus (Hymenoptera, Apidae). J Kansas Ent Soc 1987;60:541–8. Google Scholar

  • 53.

    Darvill B, Lye GC, Goulson D. Aggregations of male Bombus muscorum (Hymenoptera: Apidae) at mature nests. Incestuous brothers or amorous suitors? Apidologie 2007;38:518–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 54.

    Bergström G, Bergman P, Appelgren M, Schmidt JO. Labial gland chemistry of three species of bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from North America. Bioorg Med Chem 1996;4:515–9. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 55.

    Ayasse M, Jarau S. Chemical ecology of bumble bees. Annu Rev Entomol 2014;59:299–319. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 56.

    Bergman P. Chemical communication in bumblebee premating behaviour. PhD Thesis. Göteborg. Sweden: Göteborg University, 1997. Google Scholar

  • 57.

    Kullenberg B, Bergström G, Bringer B, Carlberg B, Cederberg B. Observations on scent marking by Bombus Latr. and Psithynus Lep. Males (Hym., Apidae) and localization of site of production of the secretion. Zoon 1973;1:23–9. Google Scholar

  • 58.

    Ågren L, Cederberg B, Svensson BG. Changes with age in ultrastructure and pheromone content of male labial glands in some bumble bee species (Hymneoptera, Apidae). Zoon 1979;7:1–14. Google Scholar

  • 59.

    Bergman P, Bergström G. Scent marking, scent origin, and species specificity in male premating behavior of two Scandinavian bumblebees. J Chem Ecol 1997;23:1235–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 60.

    Terzo M, Coppens P, Valterová I, Toubeau G, Rasmont P. Reduced cephalic labial glands in the male bumblebees of the subgenus Rhodobombus Dalla Torre (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus Latreille). Ann Soc Entomol Fr 2007;43:497–503. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 61.

    Šobotník J, Kalinová B, Cahlíková L, Weyda F, Ptáček V, Valterová I. Age-dependent changes in structure and function of the male labial gland in Bombus terrestris. J Insect Physiol 2008;54:204–14. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 62.

    Lecocq T, Coppée A, Mathy T, Lhomme P, Cammaerts-Tricot M-C, Urbanová K, et al. Subspecific differentiation in male reproductive traits and virgin queen preferences, in Bombus terrestris. Apidologie 2015;46:595–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 63.

    Coppée A, Mathy T, Cammaerts M-C, Verheggen FJ, Terzo M, Iserbyt S, et al. Age-dependent attractivity of males’ sexual pheromones in Bombus terrestris (L.)[Hymenoptera, Apidae]. Chemoecology 2011;21:75–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 64.

    Fonta C, Masson C. Structural and functional-studies of the peripheral olfactory nervous-system of male and female bumble-bees (Bombus hypnorum and Bombus terrestris). Chem Senses 1987;12:53–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 65.

    Žáček P, Kalinová B, Šobotník J, Hovorka O, Ptáček V, Coppée A, et al. Comparison of age-dependent quantitative changes in the male labial gland secretion of Bombus terrestris and Bombus lucorum. J Chem Ecol 2009;35:698–705. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 66.

    Vanhonk CG, Velthuis HH, Röseler PF. Sex-pheromone from mandibular glands in bumblebee queens. Experientia 1978;34:838–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 67.

    Cahlíková L, Hovorka O, Ptáček V, Valterová I. Exocrine gland secretions of virgin queens of five bumblebee species (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Z Naturforsch C 2004;59:582–9. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 68.

    Krieger GM, Duchateau M-J, Van Doorn A, Ibarra F, Francke W, Ayasse M. Identification of queen sex pheromone components of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. J Chem Ecol 2006;32:453–71. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 69.

    Urbanová K, Cahlíková L, Hovorka O, Ptáček V, Valterová I. Age-dependent changes in the chemistry of exocrine glands of Bombus terrestris queens. J Chem Ecol 2008;34:458–66. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 70.

    Coppée A, Terzo M, Valterova I, Rasmont P. Intraspecific variation of the cephalic labial gland secretions in Bombus terrestris (L.)(Hymenoptera: Apidae). Chem Biodivers 2008;5:2654–61. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 71.

    Shirtliff ME, Krom BP, Meijering RA, Peters BM, Zhu J, Scheper MA, et al. Farnesol-induced apoptosis in Candida albicans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009;53:2392–401. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 72.

    Liu P, Luo L, Guo J, Liu H, Wang B, Deng B, et al. Farnesol induces apoptosis and oxidative stress in the fungal pathogen Penicillium expansum. Mycologia 2010;102:311–8. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 73.

    Joo JH, Liao G, Collins JB, Grissom SF, Jetten AM. Farnesol-induced apoptosis in human lung carcinoma cells is coupled to the endoplasmic reticulum stress response. Cancer Res 2007;67:7929–36. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 74.

    Joo JH, Jetten AM. Molecular mechanisms involved in farnesol-induced apoptosis. Cancer lett 2010;287:123–35. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 75.

    Bergström G, Svensson BG, Appelgren M, Groth I. Complexity of bumble bee marking pheromones: biochemical, ecological and systematical interpretations. In: Howse D, Clément JL, editors. Biosystematics of social insects. London and New York: Academic Press, vol. 19, 1981:175–83. Google Scholar

  • 76.

    Bertsch A, Schweer H. Cephalic labial gland secretions of males as species recognition signals in bumblebees: are there really geographical variations in the secretions of the Bombus terrestris subspecies? (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus). Beitr Entomol 2012;62:103–24. Google Scholar

  • 77.

    Terzo M, Urbanova K, Valterova I, Rasmont P. Intra and interspecific variability of the cephalic labial glands’ secretions in male bumblebees: the case of Bombus (Thoracobombus) ruderarius and B.(Thoracobombus) sylvarum [Hymenoptera, Apidae]. Apidologie 2005;36:85–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 78.

    Martinet B, Lecocq T, Brasero N, Biella P, Urbanová K, Valterová I, et al. Following the cold: geographical differentiation between interglacial refugia and speciation in the arcto-alpine species complex Bombus monticola (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Syst Entomol 2018;43:200–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 79.

    Cederberg B, Svensson B, Bergström G, Appelgren M, Groth I. Male marking pheromones in north European cuckoo bumble bees, Psithyrus (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Nova Acta Regiae Soc Sci Ups C 1984;3:161–6. Google Scholar

  • 80.

    Hovorka O, Urbanová K, Valterová I. Premating behavior of Bombus confusus males and analysis of their labial gland secretion. J Chem Ecol 1998;24:183–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 81.

    Hovorka O, Valterová I, Rasmont P, Terzo M. Male cephalic labial gland secretions of two bumblebee species of the subgenus Cullumanobombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus Latreille) and their distribution in Central Europe. Chem Biodivers 2006;3:1015–22. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 82.

    Urbanová K, Valterová I, Hovorka O, Kindl J. Chemotaxonomical characterisation of males of Bombus lucorum (Hymenoptera: Apidae) collected in the Czech Republic. Eur J Entomol 2001;98:111–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 83.

    Urbanová K, Halík J, Hovorka O, Kindl J, Valterová I. Marking pheromones of the cuckoo bumblebee males (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Bombus Latreille): compositions of labial gland secretions of six species found in the Czech Republic. Biochem Syst Ecol 2004;32:1025–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 84.

    Bertsch A, Schweer H, Titze A, Tanaka H. Male labial gland secretions and mitochondrial DNA markers support species status of Bombus cryptarum and B. magnus (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Insectes Soc 2005;52:45–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 85.

    Terzo M, Valterová I, Rasmont P. Atypical secretions of the male cephalic labial glands in bumblebees: the case of Bombus (Rhodobombus) mesomelas Gerstaecker (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Chem Biodivers 2007;4:1466–71. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 86.

    Brasero N, Martinet B, Urbanová K, Valterová I, Torres A, Hoffmann W, et al. First chemical analysis and characterization of the male species-specific cephalic labial-gland secretions of South American bumblebees. Chem Biodivers 2015;12:1535–46. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 87.

    Brasero N, Martinet B, Lecocq T, Lhomme P, Biella P, Valterová I, et al. The cephalic labial gland secretions of two socially parasitic bumblebees Bombus hyperboreus (Alpinobombus) and Bombus inexspectatus (Thoracobombus) question their inquiline strategy. Insect Sci 2018;25:75–86. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 88.

    Kubo R, Ono M. Comparative analysis of volatile components from labial glands of male Japanese bumblebees (Bombus spp.). Entomol Sci 2010;13:167–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 89.

    Kubo R, Harano K-i, Ono M. Male scent-marking pheromone of Bombus ardens ardens (Hymenoptera; Apidae) attracts both conspecific queens and males. Sci Nat 2017;104:69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 90.

    Terzo M, Valterová I, Urbanová K, Rasmont P. De la nécessité de redécrire les phéromones sexuelles des mâles de bourdons [Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini] publiées avant 1996 pour leur utilisation en analyse phylogénétique. Phytoprotection 2003;84:39–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 91.

    Rasmont P, Terzo M, Aytekin AM, Hines H, Urbanová K, Cahlíková L, et al. Cephalic secretions of the bumblebee subgenus Sibiricobombus Vogt suggest Bombus niveatus Kriechbaumer and Bombus vorticosus Gerstaecker are conspecific (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus). Apidologie 2005;36:571–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 92.

    Brasero N, Lecocq T, Martinet B, Valterová I, Urbanová K, de Jonghe R, et al. Variability in sexual pheromones questions their role in bumblebee pre-mating recognition system. J Chem Ecol 2018;44:9–17. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 93.

    Bergström G, Kullenberg B, Ställberg-Stenhagen S. Studies on natural odoriferous compounds. VII. Recognition of two forms of Bombus lucorum L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae) by analysis of the volatile marking secretion from individual males. Chem Scr 1973;13:174–82. Google Scholar

  • 94.

    Lanne BS, Bergström G, Wassgren A-B, Törnbäck B. Biogenetic pattern of straight chain marking compounds in male bumble bees. Comp Biochem Physiol. B: Biochem Mol Biol 1987;88:631–6. Google Scholar

  • 95.

    Bergström G, Kullenberg B, Ställberg-Stenhagen S, Stenhagen E. Arkiv Kemi 1968;28:453–69. Google Scholar

  • 96.

    Bertsch A. Abgrenzung der Hummel-Arten Bombus cryptarum und B. lucorum mittels männlicher Labialdrüsen-Sekrete und morphologischer Merkmale (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Entomol Gener 1997;22:129–45. Google Scholar

  • 97.

    Pamilo P, Tengö J, Rasmont P, Pirhonen K, Pekkarinen A, Kaarnama E. Pheromonal and enzyme genetic characteristics of the Bombus lucorum species complex in northern Europe. Entomol Fenn 1997;7:187–94. Google Scholar

  • 98.

    Calam D. Species and sex-specific compounds from the heads of male bumblebees (Bombus spp.). Nature 1969;221:856–7. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 99.

    Bertsch A, Schweer H. Labial gland marking secretions of male Bombus lucorum bumblebees from Europe and China reveal two separate species: B. lucorum (Linnaeus 1761) and Bombus minshanicola (Bischoff 1936). Biochem Syst Ecol 2011;39:587–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 100.

    Bertsch A, Schweer H. Male labial gland secretions as species recognition signals in species of Bombus. Biochem Syst Ecol 2012;40:103–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 101.

    Svensson B, Appelgren M, Bergström G. Geranylgeranyl acetate and 2-heptadecanone as the dominant marking secretion components of the labial glands in the bumble bee Alpigenobombus wurfleini. Nova Acta Regiae Soc Sci Ups C 1984;3:145–7. Google Scholar

  • 102.

    Bertsch A, Schweer H, Titze A. Chemistry of the cephalic labial gland secretions of male Bombus morrisoni and B. rufocinctus, two North American bumblebee males with perching behavior. J Chem Ecol 2008;34:1268–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 103.

    Bertsch A, Schweer H, Titze A. Analysis of the labial gland secretions of the male bumblebee Bombus griseocollis (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Z Naturforsch C 2004;59:701–7. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 104.

    Lecocq T, Dellicour S, Michez D, Lhomme P, Vanderplanck M, Valterová I, et al. Scent of a break-up: phylogeography and reproductive trait divergences in the red-tailed bumblebee (Bombus lapidarius). BMC Evol Biol 2013;13:263. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 105.

    Appelgren M, Bergström G, Svensson B, Cederberg B. Marking pheromones of Megabombus bumble bee males. Acta Chem Scand 1991;45:972–4. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 106.

    Kofroňová E, Nekola A, Cvačka J, Kindl J, Valterová I. Fatty acids from pool lipids as possible precursors of the male marking pheromone in bumblebees. Molecules 2014;19:2330–43. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 107.

    Descoins C, Frerot B, Gallois M, Lettere M, Bergström G, Appelgren M, et al. Identification des composés de la phéromone de marquage produite par les glandes labiales des mâles de Megabombus pascuorum (Scopoli) (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Nova Acta Regiae Soc Sci Ups C 1984;3:149–52. Google Scholar

  • 108.

    Bergström G, Appelgren M, Svensson BG, Ågren L, Descoins C, Frerot B, et al. Marking pheromones of Megabombus sylvarum (L.) and B. ruderarius (Muller) males (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 1985;16:57–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 109.

    Brasero N, Vandame R, Sagot P, Martinet B, Valterová I, Rasmont P. Thoracobombus from Mexico: a description of the male species-specific cephalic labial gland secretions. Apidologie 2019;50:183–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 110.

    Bergström G, Svensson B. Studies on natural odoriferous compounds. VII. Characteristic marking secretions of the forms lapponicus and scandinavicus of Bombus lapponicus Fabr. (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Chem Scr 1973;13:231–8. Google Scholar

  • 111.

    Svensson B, Bergström G. Volatile marking secretions from the labial gland of North European Pyrobombus DT males (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Insectes Soc 1977;24:213–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 112.

    Bertsch A, Schweer H, Titze A. Analysis of the labial gland secretions of the male bumble bee Bombus perplexus Cresson (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from North America. Z Naturforsch C 2004;59:263–70. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 113.

    Luxová A, Urbanová K, Valterová I, Terzo M, Borg-Karlson AK. Absolute configuration of chiral terpenes in marking pheromones of bumblebees and cuckoo bumblebees. Chirality 2004;16:228–33. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 114.

    Svensson BG, Bergström G. Marking pheromones of Alpinobombus males. J Chem Ecol 1979;5:603–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 115.

    Martinet B, Brasero N, Lecocq T, Biella P, Valterová I, Michez D, et al. Adding attractive semio-chemical trait refines the taxonomy of Alpinobombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 2018;49:838–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 116.

    Bergman P, Bergström G, Appelgren M. Labial gland marking secretion in males of two Scandinavian cuckoo bumblebee species (genus Psithyrus). Chemoecology 1996;7:140–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 117.

    Valterová I, Svatoš A, Hovorka O. Analysis of the labial gland secretion of the cuckoo-bumblebee (Psithyrus vestalis) males and synthesis of abundant geranylcitronellol. Collect Czech Chem Commun 1996;61:1501–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 118.

    Lecocq T, Vereecken NJ, Michez D, Dellicour S, Lhomme P, Valterova I, et al. Patterns of genetic and reproductive traits differentiation in mainland vs. Corsican populations of bumblebees. PLoS One 2013;8:e65642. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 119.

    Lecocq T, Lhomme P, Michez D, Dellicour S, Valterova I, Rasmont P. Molecular and chemical characters to evaluate species status of two cuckoo bumblebees: Bombus barbutellus and Bombus maxillosus (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombini). Syst Entomol 2011;36:453–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 120.

    Valterová I, Urbanová K. Chemické signály čmeláků. Chem Listy 1997;91:846–57. Google Scholar

  • 121.

    Bergström LG. Chemical communication by behaviour-guiding olfactory signals. Chem Commun 2008:3959–79. Google Scholar

  • 122.

    Bellés X, Galofré A, Ginebreda A. Taxonomic potential of the chemical constituents in the cephalic marking secretions of Bombus and Psithyrus species (Hymenoptera, Apidae): a numerical taxonomic study. Apidologie 1987;18:231–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 123.

    Ställberg-Stenhagen S. The absolute configuration of terrestrol. Acta Chem Scand 1970;24:358–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 124.

    Valterová I, Urbanová K, Hovorka O, Kindl J. Composition of the labial gland secretion of the bumblebee males Bombus pomorum. Z Naturforsch C 2001;56:430–6. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 125.

    Brasero N. From taxonomy to chemo-ecology. New insight into the most diverse group of bumblebees (Thoracobombus subgenus). PhD Thesis. Mons, Belgium: Mons University, 2018. Google Scholar

  • 126.

    Luxová A, Valterová I, Stránský K, Hovorka O, Svatoš A. Biosynthetic studies on marking pheromones of bumblebee males. Chemoecology 2003;13:81–7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 127.

    Žáček P, Prchalová-Horňáková D, Tykva R, Kindl J, Vogel H, Svatoš A, et al. De novo biosynthesis of sexual pheromone in the labial gland of bumblebee males. ChemBioChem 2013;14:361–71. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 128.

    Žáček P, Kindl J, Frišonsová K, Průchová M, Votavová A, Hovorka O, et al. Biosynthetic studies of the male marking pheromone in bumblebees by using labelled fatty acids and two-dimensional gas chromatography with mass detection. ChemPlusChem 2015;80:839–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 129.

    Buček A, Brabcová J, Vogel H, Prchalová D, Kindl J, Valterová I, et al. Exploring complex pheromone biosynthetic processes in the bumblebee male labial gland by RNA sequencing. Insect Mol Biol 2016;25:295–314. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 130.

    Prchalová D, Buček A, Brabcová J, Žáček P, Kindl J, Valterová I, et al. Regulation of isoprenoid pheromone biosynthesis in bumblebee males. ChemBioChem 2016;17:260–7. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 131.

    Bossert S. Recognition and identification of species in the Bombus lucorum-complex. A review and outlook. Dtsch Entomol Z 2015;62:19–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 132.

    Lecocq T, Dellicour S, Michez D, Dehon M, Dewulf A, De Meulemeester T, et al. Methods for species delimitation in bumblebees (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus): towards an integrative approach. Zool Scr 2015;44:281–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 133.

    Gjershaug JO, Staverløkk A, Kleven O, Ødegaard F. Species status of Bombus monticola Smith (Hymenoptera: Apidae) supported by DNA barcoding. Zootaxa 2013;3716:431–40. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 134.

    Lecocq T, Coppée A, Michez D, Brasero N, Rasplus J-Y, Valterová I, et al. The alien’s identity: consequences of taxonomic status for the international bumblebee trade regulations. Biol Conserv 2016;195:169–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 135.

    Symonds MR, Elgar MA. The mode of pheromone evolution: evidence from bark beetles. Proc R Soc London, Ser B 2004;271:839–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 136.

    Dumont S, McNeil JN. Responsiveness of Pseudaletia unipuncta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) males, maintained as adults under different temperature and photoperiodic conditions, to female sex pheromone. J Chem Ecol 1992;18:1797–807. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 137.

    Slabbekoorn H, Smith TB. Habitat-dependent song divergence in the little greenbul: an analysis of environmental selection pressures on acoustic signals. Evolution 2002;56:1849–58. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 138.

    Förschler MI, Kalko EK. Geographical differentiation, acoustic adaptation and species boundaries in mainland citril finches and insular Corsican finches, superspecies Carduelis citrinella. J Biogeography 2007;34:1591–600. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 139.

    Bossert S, Murray EA, Almeida EA, Brady SG, Blaimer BB, Danforth BN. Combining transcriptomes and ultraconserved elements to illuminate the phylogeny of Apidae. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2019;130:121–31. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 140.

    Leonhardt SD. Chemical ecology of stingless bees. J Chem Ecol 2017;43:385–402. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 141.

    Borg-Karlson AK, Tengö J, Valterová I, Unelius CR, Taghizadeh T, Tolasch T, et al. (S)-(+)-linalool, a mate attractant pheromone component in the bee Colletes cunicularius. J Chem Ecol 2003;29:1–14. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 142.

    Tengö J, Ågren L, Baur B, Isaksson R, Liljefors T, Mori K, et al. Andrena wilkella male bees discriminate between enantiomers of cephalic secretion components. J Chem Ecol 1990;16:429–41. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 143.

    Vinson SB, Williams HJ, Frankie GW, Wheeler JW, BlumMS, Coville RE. Mandibular glands of male Centris adani, (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae): their morphology, chemical constituents, and function in scent marking and territorial behavior. J Chem Ecol 1982;8:319–27. Google Scholar

  • 144.

    Minckley R, Buchmann S, Wcislo W. Bioassay evidence for a sex attractant pheromone in the large carpenter bee, Xylocopa varipuncta (Anthophoridae: Hymenoptera). J Zool 1991;224:285–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 145.

    Clarke SR, Dani FR, Jones GR, Morgan ED, Schmidt JO. (Z)-3-Hexenyl (R)-3-hydroxybutanoate: a male specific compound in three North American decorator wasps Eucerceris rubripes, E. conata and E. tricolor. J Chem Ecol 2001;27:1437–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 146.

    Kroiss J, Schmitt T, Schreier P, Strohm E, Herzner G. A selfish function of a “social” gland? A postpharyngeal gland functions as a sex pheromone reservoir in males of the solitary wasp Philanthus triangulum. J Chem Ecol 2006;32:2763–76. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 147.

    Turillazzi S, Francescato E. Patrolling behaviour and related secretory structures in the males of some stenogastrine wasps (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Insectes Soc 1990;37:146–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 148.

    Mitra A, Palavalli Nettimi R, Ramachandran A, Saha P, Gadagkar R. Males and females of the social wasp Ropalidia marginata do not differ in their cuticular hydrocarbon profiles and do not seem to use any long-distance volatile mate attraction cues. Insectes Soc 2015;62:281–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 149.

    Beani L, Calloni C. Leg tegumental glands and male rubbing behavior at leks in Polistes dominulus (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). J Insect Behav 1991;4:449–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 150.

    Ha D. The function and evolution of exocrine glands. In: Ross KG, Mattthews RW, editors. The social biology of wasps. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press, 1991:540–69. Google Scholar

  • 151.

    Tupec M, Buček A, Valterová I, Pichová I. Biotechnological potential of insect fatty acid-modifying enzymes. Z Naturforsch C: Biosci 2017;72:387–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2019-0003).

About the article

Received: 2019-01-11

Revised: 2019-05-28

Accepted: 2019-07-31

Published Online: 2019-08-22

Published in Print: 2019-09-25


Citation Information: Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C, Volume 74, Issue 9-10, Pages 233–250, ISSN (Online) 1865-7125, ISSN (Print) 0939-5075, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2019-0003.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in