Heather M. Whitney, Lars Chittka, Toby J.A. Bruce, Beverley J. Glover 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dancing Bees Communicate a Foraging Preference for Rural Lands in High-Level Agri- Environment Schemes Margaret J. Couvillon, Roger Schürch, Francis L.W.
Advertisements

Aimee S. Dunlap, Matthew E. Nielsen, Anna Dornhaus, Daniel R. Papaj 
Volume 16, Issue 13, Pages (July 2006)
Cell Competition: Dying for Communal Interest
Gemmata obscuriglobus
Biological components of sex differences in color preference
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages (June 2009)
Merging of Long-Term Memories in an Insect
Volume 27, Issue 11, Pages R447-R448 (June 2017)
Volume 24, Issue 23, Pages R1109-R1111 (December 2014)
Eye position predicts what number you have in mind
Volume 27, Issue 23, Pages e4 (December 2017)
Pattern and Component Motion Responses in Mouse Visual Cortical Areas
Sensory-Motor Integration: More Variability Reduces Individuality
Visual Development: Learning Not to See
Linguistic Relativity: Does Language Help or Hinder Perception?
Honeybee Vision: In Good Shape for Shape Recognition
Volume 21, Issue 20, Pages R837-R838 (October 2011)
Addiction: Flies Hit the Skids
Sing-Hang Cheung, Fang Fang, Sheng He, Gordon E. Legge  Current Biology 
Physarum Current Biology
Björn Brembs, Wolfgang Plendl  Current Biology 
Volume 25, Issue 23, Pages R1114-R1116 (December 2015)
Marine Battesti, Celine Moreno, Dominique Joly, Frederic Mery 
Miguel P. Eckstein, Kathryn Koehler, Lauren E. Welbourne, Emre Akbas 
Tissue Morphogenesis: Take a Step Back and Relax!
Sensorimotor Learning Configures the Human Mirror System
Fertilization: Monogamy by Mutually Assured Destruction
Volume 25, Issue 21, Pages (November 2015)
Honeybee Communication: A Signal for Danger
Zhang-Yi Liang, Mark Andrew Hallen, Sharyn Anne Endow  Current Biology 
Children, but Not Chimpanzees, Prefer to Collaborate
Chimeric Synergy in Natural Social Groups of a Cooperative Microbe
Tamar Gutnick, Ruth A. Byrne, Binyamin Hochner, Michael Kuba 
Miguel P. Eckstein, Kathryn Koehler, Lauren E. Welbourne, Emre Akbas 
Volume 27, Issue 23, Pages e4 (December 2017)
Rhamnose-Containing Cell Wall Polymers Suppress Helical Plant Growth Independently of Microtubule Orientation  Adam M. Saffer, Nicholas C. Carpita, Vivian.
The Occipital Place Area Is Causally Involved in Representing Environmental Boundaries during Navigation  Joshua B. Julian, Jack Ryan, Roy H. Hamilton,
Mosquitoes Use Vision to Associate Odor Plumes with Thermal Targets
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages (February 2015)
A Comparative Analysis of Spindle Morphometrics across Metazoans
Event-Based Prospective Memory in the Rat
Pattern and Component Motion Responses in Mouse Visual Cortical Areas
Daniel Hanus, Josep Call  Current Biology 
Volume 15, Issue 13, Pages R483-R484 (July 2005)
Janina Hesse, Susanne Schreiber  Current Biology 
Visual Development: Learning Not to See
Animal Cognition: An Insect's Sense of Time?
Jingping P. Xu, Zijiang J. He, Teng Leng Ooi  Current Biology 
Dissociable Effects of Salience on Attention and Goal-Directed Action
Noa Raz, Ella Striem, Golan Pundak, Tanya Orlov, Ehud Zohary 
Centrosome Size: Scaling Without Measuring
N. Barnsley, J.H. McAuley, R. Mohan, A. Dey, P. Thomas, G.L. Moseley 
Volume 20, Issue 24, Pages (December 2010)
Dongjun He, Daniel Kersten, Fang Fang  Current Biology 
Early Life: Embracing the RNA World
Function and Structure of Human Left Fusiform Cortex Are Closely Associated with Perceptual Learning of Faces  Taiyong Bi, Juan Chen, Tiangang Zhou, Yong.
John Skelhorn, Candy Rowe  Current Biology 
Volume 16, Issue 13, Pages (July 2006)
Daniela Vallentin, Andreas Nieder  Current Biology 
Candida albicans Biofilms: More Than Filamentation
Horizontal Gene Transfer: Accidental Inheritance Drives Adaptation
Nadine Krüger, Iva M. Tolić-Nørrelykke  Current Biology 
Animal Personalities: The Advantage of Diversity
Nonvisual Motor Training Influences Biological Motion Perception
Matthew W. Hahn, Gregory C. Lanzaro  Current Biology 
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages R198-R202 (March 2008)
Head-Eye Coordination at a Microscopic Scale
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages (January 2017)
Volume 24, Issue 20, Pages R987-R988 (October 2014)
Presentation transcript:

Conical Epidermal Cells Allow Bees to Grip Flowers and Increase Foraging Efficiency  Heather M. Whitney, Lars Chittka, Toby J.A. Bruce, Beverley J. Glover  Current Biology  Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages 948-953 (June 2009) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.051 Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Conical-Celled and Flat-Celled Petal Surfaces and Flowers Top row, left to right: scanning electron microscopy of epoxy cast of rose flowers, scanning electron microscopy of wild-type Antirrhinum, conical-celled nivea flower, conical-celled wild-type flower. Bottom row, left to right: scanning electron microscopy of epoxy cast of magnolia flower, scanning electron microscopy of mixta mutant Antirrhinum petal, flat-celled mixta/nivea double-mutant flower, flat-celled mixta flower. Scale bars represent 20 μm. Current Biology 2009 19, 948-953DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.051) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Learning Curve of Bees Discriminating Conical-Celled nivea from Flat-Celled mixta/nivea Flowers Quinine solution in the nivea flowers, 30% sucrose in the mixta/nivea flowers. Landing on nivea and then aborting without drinking or landing on mixta/nivea and then drinking were considered correct choices. Number of individual bees tested (n) = 10. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Current Biology 2009 19, 948-953DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.051) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Learning Curves of Bees Discriminating Conical-Celled from Flat-Celled Colorless Epoxy Disks (A) Quinine solution in the flat-celled flowers, 30% sucrose in the conical-celled flowers. Either an abort following landing on a flat-celled surface or a drink following landing on a conical-celled surface was scored as a correct choice. Number of individual bees tested (n) = 10. (B) 30% sucrose solution in flat-celled flowers, quinine in conical-celled flowers. Either a drink following landing on a flat-celled surface or an abort following landing on a conical-celled surface was scored as a correct choice. n = 10. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Current Biology 2009 19, 948-953DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.051) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Experimental Positioning of Flowers and Epoxy Disks (A) Vertical presentation of epoxy disks (in this case, purple conical-celled and pink flat-celled) to investigate innate preferences for the two surfaces. (B) Horizontal presentation of Antirrhinum flowers with readily accessible reward (in tube). (C) Vertical presentation of Antirrhinum flowers, requiring manipulation to open the flower and access the reward at the base of the corolla. Current Biology 2009 19, 948-953DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.051) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Preference for Conical Cells in Epoxy Disks Positioned Either Horizontal or at 90 Degrees Relative to the Horizontal Conical flowers were colored either pink or purple and flat flowers were colored either purple or pink, to allow bees to learn to associate color with tactile effect. Two bars for each angle represent the conical = purple experiment (series 1) and conical = pink experiment (series 2), respectively. Number of individual bees tested (n) = 10 for each color series. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Current Biology 2009 19, 948-953DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.051) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Preference for Landing on Wild-Type Conical-Celled Flowers over mixta Flat-Celled Flowers at Two Angles, with Both Flower Types Equally Rewarded Number of individual bees tested (n) = 10; 100 choices per bee. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Current Biology 2009 19, 948-953DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.051) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Postlanding Abortion of Visits to Wild-Type Conical-Celled Flowers and mixta Flat-Celled Flowers Held Vertical, with Both Flower Types Equally Rewarded Number of individual bees tested (n) = 10 bees; 100 choices each. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Current Biology 2009 19, 948-953DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.051) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions