Study sites and colonies
All the experiments were carried out during the apple and pear blooming seasons of 2007, 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2014 in different locations of the province of Rio Negro, Argentina, while some laboratory experiments performed in the city of Buenos Aires. We used individual foragers of Apis mellifera L. and their colonies containing a mated queen, brood, and food reserves in ten-frame Langstroth hives. All beehives used had similar sizes and the same management history from the beekeeper. The honey bees studied belonged to commercial Langstroth-type hives rented to pollinate these plots. Each hive had a fertilized queen, 3 or 4 capped brood frames, reserves and approximately 15,000 individuals56.
Testing generalization of memories from pear mimic odours to pear and apple natural floral scents
The absolute conditioning assays were performed in the laboratories of the School of Exacts and Natural Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires (34° 32′ S, 58° 26′ W), Buenos Aires, Argentina. We used honey bee foragers collected at the entrance of the hives settle in the experimental field of the School of Exacts and Natural Sciences. The apple (‘Granny Smith’ and ‘Red Delicious’ varieties) and pear (‘Packham’ and ‘D’anjou’ varieties) bud samples that we used as conditioned stimuli (CS) during the conditioning were collected at the end of the blossom of 2011 in Ingeniero Huergo (39° 03′ 27.5″ S; 67° 13′ 53.5″ W), province of Río Negro, Argentina, and taken to the laboratory in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina, to be used within the following 2 days.
We first developed the three different synthetic mixtures (PM, PMI and PMII) that could be generalized to the fragrance of the pear flower by foraging bees. The pear synthetic mixtures were formulated considering the previously reported volatile profile of pear blossoms57. Then, we chose the synthetic mixture most perceptually similar to the pear flower fragrance and measured its generalisation response to the apple flower fragrance to test the compounds’ specificity. The chemical compounds used to prepare the different synthetic mixtures for the behavioural assays were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany. The compounds used for the three pear mixtures (PM, PMI and PMII) were composed by alpha-pinene, 2-ethyl-hexanol, (R)-(+)-limonene, and (±)-linalool. For details of the PM and mixture proportions see Patent PCT/IB2018/05555058.
To test generalization, we took advantages of the fact that honey bees reflexively extend their proboscises when sugar solution is applied to their antennae59. The proboscis extension reflex (PER) can be used to condition bees to an odour if a neutral olfactory stimulus (CS) is paired with a sucrose reward as unconditioned stimulus, US60. Conditioned honey bees extend their proboscises towards the odour alone, a response that indicates that this stimulus has been learned and predicts the oncoming food reward. Conditioned bees can generalize such a learned response to a novel odour if it is perceived like the conditioned one (CS). Then we performed three absolute PER conditionings where we paired each of the three PMs with a sucrose-water solution (30%) reward along three learning trials (exp. 4.2a). Afterwards, pear floral scent was presented as novel odour to test generalization. Based on the generalization level to the pear odour, we chose the synthetic mixture that showed the highest generalisation towards pear flower fragrance, and we used it in all the experiments that follow. In an additional 3-trial PER conditioning with the chosen mixture, we quantified generalisation towards both the pear and apple fragrances as novel stimuli (exp. 4.2b).
The experimental bees were all foragers, captured from colonies that had no access to any pear and/or apple tree, hence completely naïve for the CSs. Immediately after capture, bees were anaesthetized at 4 °C and harnessed in metal tubes so that they could only move their mouthparts and antennae60. They were fed 30% weight/weight unscented sucrose solution for about three seconds and kept in a dark incubator (30 °C, 55% relative humidity) for about two hours. Only those bees that showed the unconditioned response (the reflexive extension of the proboscis after applying a 30% w/w sucrose solution to the antennae) and did not respond to the mechanical air flow stimulus were used. Trials lasted 46 s and presented three steps: 20 s of clean air, 6 s of odour presentation (CS) and the last 20 s of clean air. During rewarded trials (CS), the reward (US, a drop of 30% w/w sucrose solution) was delivered upon the last 3 s of CS presentation. The synthetic mixtures (PM) were delivered in a constant air flow (15 ml/s) that passed through a 1 ml syringe containing 4 µl of the synthetic mixture on a small strip of filter paper. On the other hand, pear and apple floral volatiles were swept from a 100 g of fresh pear buds (var. ‘D’Anjou’ and ‘Packham’) or apple buds (var. ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’ and ‘Red Delicious’) inside a kitasato by means of an air flow (54 ml/s).
Testing discrimination between mimics and natural floral scents
The differential conditioning assays were performed in a field laboratory in Ingeniero Huergo, province of Río Negro, Argentina. Conditioning trials with AM as CS were carried out in September 2007 and 2008, prior to the beginning of flowering of the fruit trees. Conditioning trials with PM as CS were carried out in September 2011 in the same area (Ingeniero Huergo, province of Río Negro, Argentina). Apple and pear bud samples used as CS were collected in plots that start blooming located around Ingeniero Huergo, but distant (more than 1 km) from the plot where we collected the bees. The bud samples presented the following varieties: M. domesticus sp., ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’, and ‘Red Delicious’; P. communis sp., ‘Packham’ and ‘D’Anjou’.
With the aim to develop a synthetic mixture that presents difficult to discriminate with the fragrance of the apple flower by foraging bees, an apple synthetic mixture (AM) was formulated considering the previously reported volatile profile of apple blossoms61. The chemical compounds used to prepare the apple synthetic mixtures for the behavioural assays were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany. Apple mimic (AM) was composed by benzaldehyde, limonene and citral. For details of the AM proportions see Patent AR2011010244162. Jasmine mimic (JM) was a commercial extract obtained from Firmenich S.A.I.C. y F, Argentina.
If the synthetic mixture chosen were perceptually similar to the apple flower fragrance, experimental bees should have difficult to discriminate to the apple flower fragrance to test the compounds’ specificity. Thus, we performed differential PER conditioning between synthetic mixtures (AM and Jasmine mimic, JM) or between synthetic mixtures (AM or JM) and the apple natural fragrance. We followed a differential PER conditioning34 to assess to what extent the bees were able to discriminate the synthetic mimics from their natural flower scents. PER differential conditioning consisted of four pairs of trials, four rewarded trials (CS+) and four non-rewarded trials (CS−) that were presented in a pseudo-randomized manner. Conditionings were performed using the synthetic mixtures PM and AM and the natural floral scents, pear and apple, either as CS+ and CS−. We followed the same procedure that in 3.3 to capture the bees and to present the stimuli during trials.
Feeding protocol
We used the offering of scented sucrose solution in the hive as a standardized procedure to establish long-term olfactory memory in honey bees23,24,24,26,63. Scented sucrose solution was obtained by diluting 50 µl of PM or AM per litre of sucrose solution (50% weight/weight, henceforth: w/w). For the ‘apple’ series, colonies were fed 1500 ml of sugar solution offered in an internal plastic feeder for 2 days, about 3 days before the apple trees began to bloom. For the ‘pear’ series, hives were fed 500 ml of sugar solution that we spread over the top of the central frames. Both feeding procedures have been found to be functional for establishing olfactory in-hive memories26. Depending on the pear varieties, the scented sucrose solution was offered when the pear trees were 10–40% in bloom.
Colony activity
The effects of the AM-treatment on colony nest entrance activity were studied in 18 colonies located in an agricultural setting of apple and pear trees in Ingeniero Huergo, on an 8-ha plot, half of which was planted with apple trees (varieties: ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’ and ‘Red Delicious’) and the other 4 ha with pear trees (varieties: ‘Packham’ and ‘D’anjou’). The effect of the PM-treatment on colony activity was studied in 14 colonies located in three adjoining pear plots (total surface: 8 ha) in Otto Krause (39° 06′ 22″ S 66° 59′ 46″ O, Supplementary Fig. S5), province of Río Negro, Argentina. The varieties of these plots corresponded to ‘Packham’ and ‘Williams’. Pollen collection (exp. 4.5.2) was also studied in colonies located in these plots.
We focused on the nest entrance activity since once the first successful foragers return to the hive and display dances and/or unload the food collected, it promotes the activation or reactivation of inactive foragers and, in a minor proportion, those hive mates ready to initiate foraging tasks39,65,66,67,67. Then, we choose number of incoming bees as an indicator of colony foraging activity, since most of these bees are expected to return from foraging sites33. Thus, we compared the activity level at the nest entrance between 7 SS + PM-treated colonies and 7 SS-treated colonies. We also compared the nest entrance activity level between 5 colonies treated with SS + AM and 5 colonies fed with SS. This activity value was estimated by the number of incoming foragers at the entrance of the hive for one minute, every morning at the same time (10:30 a.m.) during the entire experiment (9 consecutive days). A first measurement was done one day before feeding the colonies (used as covariate) and 7 measurements afterwards.
We measured the amount of pollen loads collected by two colonies: one fed with SS + PM and one fed with SS. Pollen loads were collected using conventional pollen traps (frontal-entrance trap), consisting of a wooden structure with a removable metal mesh inside. Pollen samples were collected for 3 days, two hours per day during the late morning, 3, 7 and 8 days after the offering of SS + PM or SS. Pollen pellets identified based on pollen colour as coming from the pear flower or from other species were separated and counted. In addition, we estimated the weight of pear pollen loads during a 5 days period, from 6 to 10 days after the offering of scented or unscented sucrose solution. To reduce measurement error, pollen loads were weighed in groups of 10.
Crop yield
Pear crop yield was studied in pear plots in General Roca (39° 02′ 00″ S; 67° 35′ 00″ O, Supplementary Fig. S4, Supplementary Table S3), province of Río Negro, Argentina. In an area of 15.2 ha (4 plots of 3.8 ha each), 45 beehives were equidistantly located in groups. We measured the number of fruits per tree set of 30 trees in the surrounding areas of the PM-treated colonies (2 groups of 8 hives) and control colonies (2 groups of 8 hives). A third group category contained 13 untreated colonies. The varieties of the pear trees were ‘D’Anjou’ and ‘Packham’.
Apple crop yield estimated by means of number of fruits per plant was studied in General Roca (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary Table S1), province of Río Negro, Argentina. We measured fruit set in the two plots that covered a surface of 3.8 ha and contained a total of 74 colonies distributed in groups (the control plot, 39 SS-treated-colonies treated with SS; and the treated plot, 35 SS + AM-treated-colonies treated with SS + AM). The varieties of the apple trees were ‘Red Delicious’ (clone 1), ‘Royal Gala’ and ‘Granny Smith’.
A second studied on apple fruit yield by means of kg of fruits per hectare was performed in Coronel Belisle (39° 11′ 00″ S 65° 59′ 00″ O, Supplementary Fig. S3, Supplementary Table S2), province of Río Negro, Argentina. Four apple plots with ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Hi Early’ and ‘Red Delicious’, clone 1 varieties of 15.4 ha each were randomly assigned to different treatments (treated plot 1, 40 SS + AM-treated-hives treated with SS + AM; treated plot 2, 40 SS + AM-treated-hives treated with SS + AM; control plot 1, 40 SS-treated-hives treated with SS; control plot 2, 40 SS-treated-hives treated with SS).
During the fruit harvest, the fruit yield was estimated in the surroundings (150 m around) of two groups of 8 colonies each. We fed one group SS + PM and the other unscented sucrose solution (SS). Yield was estimated as the number of fruits per trees in 30 randomly selected trees within each area, alternating the counts between the North and South faces of the plots. Following the same procedure, we also estimated the number of fruits per trees in the surroundings of two groups of 14 colonies each that pollinated apple crops. Again, we fed one group SS + AM and the other SS. Additionally, a total of 218 colonies in General Roca and 180 colonies in Coronel Belisle have been separated in the two experimental groups, in which yield had been provided by the producer and expressed in kg of fruits per ha. It is worth remarking that in some plots the distance between treated and control beehive groups was around 300 m, suggesting that might have been overlapping flying areas between treated and control hives. Additionally, the apple fields studied in the surrounding of Coronel Belisle, presented many trees without flowers. It was considered that the absence of flowers in numerous trees would bias the counts performed in those fields. Then, to quantify this situation, which might be associated with the masting phenomenon68, samples with the proportions of trees without flowers for every 20 trees in each plot was done. Trees that had between 80 and 100% of their surface devoid of flowers were considered “without flowers” trees, and “trees with available flowers” those that had more than 20% of their surface covered with flowers. An average of 30% of the trees within these plots were devoid of flowers. Thus, a correction factor was considered to evaluate the yield data provided by the grower per plot analysed (Supplementary Table S4).
Statistics
All statistical analyses were performed with R Core Team 201969. For Experiment 4.2 and 4.3, we analysed PER proportion by means of a binomial multiplicative generalized linear mixed model using the “glmer” function of the ‘lme4’ package70.
For experiment 4.2a we considered the pear mimics (three-level factor corresponding to PM, PMI and PMII) and the event (two-level factor corresponding to 3rd trial and test) as fixed factors and each “bee” as a random factor.
For experiment 4.2b we considered the tested odours (three-level factor corresponding to Apple, Pear and PM) as fixed factors.
For experiment 4.3 we considered the tested odours (two-level factor corresponding to CS+ and CS−) as fixed factors. Post hoc contrasts were conducted on models to assess effects and significance between fixed factors using the “emmeans” function of the ‘emmeans’ package version 1.7.071 with a significance level of 0.05.
For experiment 4.5.1 we analysed “rate of incoming bees” using a generalized linear mixed model. As Poisson model for incoming bees was overdispersed72, we used a negative binomial distribution using the ‘glmmTMB’ package (function ‘glmmTMB’73. We considered “treatment” [two-level factor corresponding to SS + AM (or SS + PM) and SS], “days” (7-level factor corresponding to the date after treatment), the rate of incoming bees before the offering of food (to control for pre-existing colony differences) as covariate (a quantitative fixed effects variable), and “colony” as a random factor.
For experiment 4.6, we analysed fruits per trees by means of a negative binomial multiplicative generalized linear mixed model using the “log” function of the ‘ml’ package70. Post hoc contrasts were conducted on models to assess effects and significance between fixed factors using the “emmeans” function of the ‘emmeans’ package version 1.8.071 with a significance level of 0.05. For experiment 4.6b we analysed “yield” (as weight of fruits per unit area) using a general linear mixed model. We checked homoscedasticity and normality assumptions (Levene and Shapiro–Wilk tests, respectively). We considered “treatment” (two-level factor corresponding to SS + AM and SS) and “apple varieties” (3-level factor corresponding to Hi Early, Granny Smith and Chañar 28) as fixed factors and “location” (2-level factor corresponding to General Roca and Coronel Belisle) as random factors.
Source: Ecology - nature.com
