Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?

David Baracchi; Mark J. F. Brown; Lars Chittka

doi:10.12688/f1000research.6262.3

Home Browse Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?

[version 3; peer review: 3 approved]

Previously titled: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees

David Baracchi¹, Mark J. F. Brown², Lars Chittka¹

PUBLISHED 29 Oct 2015

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK
² School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition gateway.

Abstract

The presence of antimicrobial secondary metabolites in nectar suggests that pollinators, which are threatened globally by emergent disease, may benefit from the consumption of nectars rich in these metabolites. We tested whether nicotine, a nectar secondary metabolite common in Solanaceae and Tilia species, is used by parasitized bumblebees as a source of self-medication, using a series of toxicological, microbiological and behavioural experiments. Caged bees infected with Crithidia bombi had a slight preference for sucrose solution laced with the alkaloid and behavioural tests showed that the parasite infection induced an increased consumption of nicotine during foraging activity, though nicotine had an appetite-reducing effect overall. When ingested, nicotine delayed the progression of a gut infection in bumblebees by a few days, but dietary nicotine did not clear the infection, and after 10 days the parasite load approached that of control bees. Moreover, when pathogens were exposed to the alkaloid prior to host ingestion, the protozoan’s viability was not directly affected, suggesting that anti-parasite effects were relatively weak. Nicotine consumption in a single dose did not impose any cost even in starved bees but the alkaloid had detrimental effects on healthy bees if consistently consumed for weeks. These toxic effects disappeared in infected bees, suggesting that detoxification costs might have been counterbalanced by the advantages in slowing the progression of the infection. Nicotine consumption did not affect bee lifespan but the reduction in the parasite load may have other likely unexplored subtle benefits both for individual bees and their colony. Potential evidence for self-medication is discussed. The contention that secondary metabolites in nectar may be under selection from pollinators, or used by plants to enhance their own reproductive success, remains to be confirmed.

Keywords

Bombus terrestris, Crithidia bombi, foraging, nicotine, pathogens, pollinators, pollinator-plant interactions, secondary metabolites

Corresponding authors: David Baracchi, Mark J. F. Brown, Lars Chittka

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: D.B. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2015 Baracchi D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2015, 4:73 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3) First published: 19 Mar 2015, 4:73 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.1) Latest published: 29 Oct 2015, 4:73 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

We have included additional details regarding the nicotine used in this study including its chirality.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by James D. Thomson
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Michael Simone-Finstrom
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Marla Spivak

Introduction

Parasites can have a dramatic impact on their hosts, and consequently provide a powerful selective force for host defence mechanisms. Molecular mechanisms (e.g. the innate and adaptive immune system) are traditionally considered the major anti-parasite defences in the animal kingdom. However, hosts can rely on a range of alternative defence mechanisms, such as morphological barriers (St Leger, 1991), changes in life-history traits (Michalakis, 2009), symbiont-mediated defences (Oliver et al., 2010) and altered behaviours (de Roode & Lefèvre, 2012; Moore, 2002).

Behavioural immunity is an important modality of defence against diseases (de Roode & Lefèvre, 2012), and medication behaviour is a key immune mechanism in some animals (Clayton & Wolfe, 1993; de Roode et al., 2013). Medication behaviour has been defined as the selective use of anti-pathogenic substances by infected individuals (Lozano, 1998; Singer et al., 2009), with a measurable benefit to host fitness and negative effects on the pathogen (Abbott, 2014; Clayton & Wolfe, 1993; Singer et al., 2009). As an additional criterion to support the notion that the substance is only of value as medication, it has been proposed that healthy individuals must suffer a cost when consuming it (Abbott, 2014).

Evidence for self-medication in animals comes from the consumption of curative plants by vertebrates (Rodriguez & Wrangham, 1993). Many plants contain metabolites that display a wide range of biological activities (Cowan, 1999) which were originally evolved to combat herbivores or plant-parasites (Hadacek, 2002). Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, modify their diet to include particular plant species containing medicinal substances to cure helminth infections (Mooney & Agrawal, 2008; Wrangham, 1995). There are also experimental explorations of self-medication in insects, for example two species of woolly bear caterpillars, which increase their preference for pyrrolizidine alkaloids or iridoid glycosides when parasitized, improving their chances of surviving parasitoid infection (Bernays & Singer, 2005; Singer et al., 2009; Smilanich et al., 2011). Similarly, fruit fly larvae infected by parasitoid wasp larvae preferentially consumed high-ethanol fly food as a medicine, again increasing their survival (Milan et al., 2012), while no evidence for self-medication to nematode parasitism has been found in the fly Drosophila putrida (Debban & Dyer, 2013). Trans-generational medication, but not self-medication, has been described in the monarch butterfly (Lefevre et al., 2010) and self-medication has been hypothesized for honeybees that increase plant resin collection in response to a fungal infection (Simone-Finstrom & Spivak, 2012). Finally, ants apply antimicrobial venomous secretion to the cuticle of contaminated larvae to medicate their brood (Tragust et al., 2013).

Animal societies arguably face intense pressure from pathogens, because of the high number of individuals living in high densities, relatively low genetic variability, and the relatively constant, high levels of humidity and warm temperatures within their nests (Schmid-Hempel, 1998). In addition, social pollinators, such as bumblebees and honeybees, are often exposed to an increased risk of infection via flowers (reviewed in McArt et al., 2014), which represent a shared “public place” where homo- and hetero-colonial conspecifics and other heterospecific pollinators feed repeatedly every day. Given the potential importance of parasites and disease in driving declines of managed honeybees (de Miranda & Genersch, 2010; Rosenkranz et al., 2010) and wild bumblebees (Cameron et al., 2011; Fürst et al., 2014; Schmid-Hempel et al., 2014; McMahon et al., 2015), understanding the potential relevance of pharmacophagy to social pollinators may be a key to understanding and managing these declines.

Here we use an important natural and managed pollinator, the bumblebee Bombus terrestris, and its parasite Crithidia bombi to investigate the potential for pharmacophagy in social pollinators. C. bombi, a trypanosome gut parasite, is the most prevalent parasite of bumblebees (Shykoff & Schmid-Hempel, 1991). The parasite, transmitted either vertically or horizontally (Durrer & Schmid-Hempel, 1994; Otterstatter & Thomson, 2007), infects adults per os, and two-three days post infection, infective cells are released through the faeces of bees (Schmid-Hempel & Schmid-Hempel, 1993). Queens infected by C. bombi have a reduced success in colony founding (Brown et al., 2003), and produce fewer reproductive offspring (Brown et al., 2003), while infected workers experience a higher mortality rate under stressful conditions (Brown et al., 2000). Moreover, infection impairs foraging success and learning abilities, inducing additional costs to the colony (Alghamdi et al., 2008; Gegear et al., 2006). Recent research (Manson et al., 2010; Richardson et al., 2015) has shown that several secondary metabolites such as alkaloids (including nicotine) and glycosides, reduce the C. bombi load after consumption by the bumblebee species Bombus impatiens, suggesting that these pollinators might exploit nectar toxins or other metabolites to self-medicate.

To test whether bumblebees are able to self-medicate using naturally occurring nectar secondary metabolites we conducted a series of toxicological, microbiological and behavioural experiments using a different species of Bombus (B. terrestris) and C. bombi as models and nicotine as a natural nectar alkaloid. Nicotine is encountered by pollinators at variable concentrations between 0.1 ng/μl and 3 ng/μl in floral nectar of Nicotiana species (native of South America and naturalised worldwide by humans) and Tilia species (native in most of the temperate Northern Hemisphere) (Detzel & Wink, 1993; Naef et al., 2004; Tadmor-Melamed et al., 2004).

Methods

Insects, pathogens and compounds

All experiments were performed with worker bumblebees (B. terrestris) obtained from a continuous rearing program (provided by Koppert B.V., The Netherlands) and conducted under standardized laboratory conditions. The insects were provided ad libitum with commercial pollen (provided by Koppert B.V., The Netherlands) and 30% sucrose solution as protein source and energy respectively. The parasites (the protozoan flagellates C. bombi) that we used for the experimental infections stemmed from several naturally infected colonies that were laboratory-raised from infected queens. (-)-Nicotine hemisulphate salt (≥95% (TLC), ~40% (w/v) in H₂O (based on free base); N1019 Sigma) was used in all experiments.

Infection experiments

To determine whether the nectar alkaloid nicotine influences the severity of C. bombi infections in bumblebees, we designed two experiments following Manson et al. (2010). In the “Continuous Exposure” test, subjects were first inoculated with C. bombi and subsequently fed on a daily supply of nicotine solution or sucrose solution (Control), mimicking the continuous exposure to nectar constituents by a bumblebee worker. In the “Delayed Exposure” test, we first exposed directly C. bombi cells to nicotine or control solutions for two hours before inoculating bees, and then we fed them on a sucrose-only solution. We subsequently compared the parasite load in inoculated bumblebees.

We collected faeces from 30 workers from three infected colonies, in order to generate a mix of different parasite strains. The faeces were mixed for one minute with a vortex mixer and the C. bombi cocktail was left to stand at room temperature for two hours. Following this, the supernatant was removed and thoroughly mixed. Cell counts were made using a haemocytometer. Following Manson et al. (2010), faeces were mixed with sucrose solution, generating an inoculum concentration of 2,000 parasite cells/μl. Before inoculation, bees were not given any nutrition for two hours to facilitate infection. Bees derived from two different healthy colonies were screened to ensure that they were free of parasites. Bees were individually presented with a 10 μl droplet of inoculum. We observed foragers until the inoculum was consumed in its entirety. Each bee thus ingested approximately 20,000 parasite cells. This value is within the range of C. bombi cells present in the faeces of infected workers (Logan et al., 2005), thus mimicking a realistic infection level for transmission to healthy bees.

Post inoculation, in the “Continuous Exposure” test, bees from three colonies were kept individually in Petri dishes and either given a 0.5 ml solution of 2.5 ng/μl nicotine (nectar concentration in the natural range of this alkaloid) in 30% sucrose solution (Experimental bees, n = 20) or 0.5 ml of plain 30% sucrose solution (Control bees, n = 20) every day for 10 days. All bees were given a 1g pollen ball every day. In the “Delayed Exposure” test, the C. bombi inoculum was exposed to nicotine in the dark for two hours before the mixture was offered to bees for ingestion. This mimics a direct exposure of the pathogen to nicotine-laced nectar in a flower. C. bombi cells were placed in a solution of 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose (Experimental treatment), and in a solution of 30% sucrose only (Control treatment). Two hours later, 20 Experimental bees and 20 Control bees were inoculated (for inoculum preparation see above). The treatment emulates a situation where Crithidia cells are deposited on a flower by infected bees and the flower is then visited by a healthy bee. Post inoculation, bees of both groups were kept individually in Petri dishes. They were provided with a fresh pollen ball and 0.5 ml of 30% sucrose solution every day.

Infection levels were determined 7 and 10 days after inoculation (the period of time in which parasite load peaks and plateaus (Schmid-Hempel & Schmid-Hempel, 1993)). Each bee was removed from its Petri dish and put into a small glass tube until it defecated. In some individual bees, too little rectal fluid was available after the initial screen; in such cases, we repeated the procedure some hours later. Faeces were transferred to a haemocytometer to count the number of parasite cells.

Laboratory toxicity bioassays

In order to determine the impact of nicotine consumption on bumblebee survival and any possible interactive effects of dietary toxin consumption and physiological stress (for which we used starvation, as Crithidia has its biggest detrimental impacts on starved bees (Brown et al., 2000)), we exposed bumblebees to artificial nectars with or without nicotine, and then kept them under starvation or with ad libitum food conditions. “Starved bees” were moved individually from their nest into Petri dishes, starved for two hours and fed either with ad libitum 30% sucrose solution food for 30 minutes (Starved, Control) or 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose (Starved, Nicotine). Survival censuses were conducted every hour until all bees were dead. “Ad libitum food bees” were kept individually in Petri dishes, and provided, every day, with 0.5 ml of 30% sucrose solution plus a fresh pollen ball (Control ad libitum food), 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose solution and, again, a fresh pollen ball (Nicotine ad libitum food), 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose solution on day 0 and 0.5 ml of 30% sucrose solution (Nicotine-once ad libitum food) and a fresh pollen ball on a daily basis (Manson et al., 2010). Survival censuses were conducted daily until all bees had died. For each of the five treatments we chose bees from three different young healthy colonies and we randomised bees across treatment groups. Each treatment group was composed of 60 bees (20 bees per colony). Comparisons of the survival parameters of bumblebees in all treatments allowed us to evaluate the effect of nicotine, starvation, and colony membership on survival. We checked for dead bees twice daily and thus such individuals could be weighed within 12h of their death using a microscale (Navigator N30330, Ohaus, Pine Brook, USA).

Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine

To evaluate whether infected bees benefit from the consumption of nicotine in terms of survival and/or parasite load, we conducted two additional experiments in which infected bumblebees received artificial nectars enriched with nicotine or not and were maintained either starved (three groups of 30 bees, 10 bees from three different colonies, 90 bees in total) or provided with ad libitum food (three groups of 45 bees, 15 bees from three different colonies, 135 bees in total). In both experiments the three groups of bees were inoculated with C. bombi as described above and individually kept in Petri dishes under three types of diet (each diet consisted of two solutions dispensed by two different Eppendorf tubes): Control Group: 30% sucrose only in both dispensers (Suc-Suc group); Exp. Group 1: 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose in both dispensers (Nic-Nic group); Exp. Group 2: 30% sucrose only in one dispenser and 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose in the other one (Suc-Nic group). “Starved bees” were fed for 12 days and then starved until all bees were dead. The infection levels were checked on days 7 and 10 after inoculation. Survival censuses were conducted every hour (starved bees) and every day (ad libitum food bees) until all bees were dead. At the end of the experiment we quantified total consumption of artificial nectars in each dispenser for each bee. Comparison of the survival parameters of bumblebees in all treatments enabled us to quantify the effect of nicotine and starvation on survival.

Behavioural test

For testing, each bee colony was housed in a wooden nest box (28 × 20 × 11 cm) connected to a wooden flight arena with a transparent, UV-transmitting Plexiglas lid (120 × 100 × 35 cm), by means of a transparent Plexiglas tube. Shutters along the length of this tube enabled control of the traffic of bees between nest boxes and flight arena (Chittka, 1998). Each bumblebee was individually marked with a coloured numbered disk.

Bees were pre-trained to forage on 12 square transparent plastic flowers of 24 × 24 mm (Perspex^® Neutral) organized in two patches equidistant from the entrance of the nest. Plastic chips were placed on vertical transparent glass cylinders to raise them above the green floor of the flight arena. During the pre-training all flowers were rewarding with a 15 μl droplet of 30% sucrose solution, placed in a well in the centre of the flower (Raine & Chittka, 2008). This provided bees with an equal chance to associate both these patches (left and right) with reward during the pre-training period. Bees were allowed to forage freely on these flowers which were refilled as soon as the bees moved on a different artificial flower. In this way bees never experienced an empty flower with the exception of the last visited one. The number of foraging trips (bouts) made in the flight arena by each bee was observed to ensure only strongly motivated foragers visiting both patches (bees that did at least five consecutive foraging bouts) were selected for the experiment (Raine et al., 2006).

After pre-training, the preference of both healthy and infected pre-trained bees was tested for blue plastic flowers (Perspex^® 727) containing nicotine (one patch reward: 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose solution; one patch reward: only 30% sucrose solution). Each bee (n = 31 infected bees; n = 28 healthy bees) was tested individually and one hundred consecutive choices were recorded after the first bout was initiated. Bees were regarded as choosing a flower when they landed and fed from it. Bees approaching or just briefly touching a flower were not considered as choosing that flower. As in the pre-training, flowers were refilled after the bee moved to a different one so that bees never experienced an empty flower with the exception of the last visited one. Flowers were washed between subsequent bees in order to remove possible scent marks (Saleh & Chittka, 2006). The patch formed by nicotine-containing flowers was swapped from left to right for half the bees of each group (healthy and infected bees). Controlled illumination was provided by high frequency fluorescent lighting [(TMS 24F) lamp with HF-B 236 TLD (4.3 Khz) ballasts, Phillips, Netherlands fitted with Activa daylight fluorescent tubes, Osram] which simulated natural daylight (Dyer & Chittka, 2004). At the end of the experiment all the bees were sacrificed and the concentration of C. bombi in their hind gut was determined (see above).

Statistical analysis

In the infection experiments, 10 out of 80 bees perished by day 10 for unknown causes. Thus, we quantified the infection intensities of 40 (day 7) and 36 (day 10) bees in the “Continuous Exposure” experiment, and 37 (day 7) and 34 (day 10) bees in the “Delayed Exposure” experiment. To compare differences in parasite load between control and experimental bees 7 and 10 days after inoculation in both experiments we used a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), with pathogen counts as the within-subject variable and C. bombi exposure to nicotine, time (day 7 and day 10), colony of origin, and bee body weight as explanatory factors. As the data were not normally distributed and homogeneity of variances and sphericity could not be assumed in several cases, we performed corrections according to Huynh-Feldt epsilon (Field, 2009). For the statistical evaluations in the survival experiments, we used the classical survival parameters (i.e. the survival distribution and the median survival time (LT50)). The survival distributions for all treatments were quantified using the Breslow Statistic (Mantel–Cox Test). The following variables were entered in the regression model: colony of origin, body weight, nicotine treatment. For the behavioural experiment, a T test was used to examine differences between preferences for nicotine-rich nectar and control nectar in healthy and infected bees. Spearman rank correlation tests were used to correlate parasite load and nicotine preference. All statistical analyses were done on SPSS 13^® for Windows.

Results

Infection experiments

In both the “Continuous Exposure” and the “Delayed Exposure” tests control bees had comparable levels of C. bombi infection (t test, day 7: t = 0.16, df = 37, P = 0.98; day 10: t = 0.92, df = 34, P = 0.36). In the “Continuous Exposure” test, a diet laced with nicotine reduced the intensity of C. bombi infections in bee workers (Dataset 1). GLMM analysis revealed significant main effects of nicotine and time since inoculation on infection intensity, but not colony of origin or bee body weight (Table 1). At both 7 and 10 days after inoculation, bees exposed to nicotine had infections that were (on average) 1.11 and 0.56 times respectively less intense than control bees (t test, day 7: n = 20-20, t = 5.2, df = 38, P < 0.001; day 10: n = 18-18, t = 3.47, df = 34, P = 0.001; Figure 1). Infection intensity increased significantly from day 7 to day 10, independently of nicotine treatment (no-significant Nicotine and Colony x Time effect; Table 1).

Table 1. “Continuous Exposure” test: results from GLMM analysis of C. bombi population dynamics in bumblebees.

Factor	F-value	Df	P-value
Nicotine diet	35.3	1,61	0.001
Time since inoculation	16.2	1,61	0.001
Bee body weight	1.07	1,61	0.3
Colony	0.46	1,65	0.8
Interactions	-	-	N.S.

Figure 1. Intensity of C. bombi infections in bumblebees that received either a nicotine diet (Experimental bees, n = 20) or a sucrose only diet (Control bees, n = 20).

Faeces were checked after 7 days and 10 days post inoculation. Box plots show medians, 25^th and 75^th percentiles (** P < 0.001; * P = 0.001).

In the “Delayed Exposure” test, exposing C. bombi to nicotine for two hours before inoculation had no effect on parasite load (Table 2) (Dataset 1). At 7 days and 10 days post-inoculation, bees exposed to nicotine had infections that on average were as intense as those of control bees (t test, day 7: n = 19-18, t = 0.16, df = 35, P = 0.87; day 10: n = 17-17, t = -0.69, df = 32, P = 0.5; Figure 2). Infections intensified significantly from day 7 to day 10, independently of nicotine treatment (there was no significant Nicotine x Time and Colony x Time effects; Table 2). Taken together, these findings prove the antimicrobial activity of nicotine against the pathogen when ingested by bumblebees, but also indicate that when pathogens are exposed to the alkaloid prior to host ingestion the protozoan’s viability is not strongly affected.

Table 2. Delayed Exposure test: results from the GLMM analysis of C. bombi population dynamics in bumblebees.

Factor	F-value	Df	P-value
Nicotine pre-treatment	0.02	1,62	0.8
Time since inoculation	27.1	1,60	0.001
Bee body weight	0.52	1,62	0.4
Colony	2.9	1,62	0.1
Interactions	-	-	N.S.

Bee CE-Exp	Parasites 7 CE-Exp	Parasites 10 CE-Exp	Colony CE-Exp	Diet CE-Exp	Body weight CE-Exp	Bee DE Exp	Parasites (7) DE Exp	Parasites (10) DE Exp	Colony DE Exp	Diet DE Exp	Body weight DE Exp
1	238	318	1	1	0.41	1	469	541	1	1	0.392
2	315	589	1	1	0.3	2	401	648	1	1	0.26
3	615	806	1	1	0.3	3	855	779	1	1	0.336
4	220	332	1	1	0.28	4	801	634	1	1	0.216
5	274	517	1	1	0.26	5	532	609	1	1	0.214
6	497		1	1	0.27	6	287		1	1	0.278
7	674	748	1	1	0.33	7	375	574	1	1	0.356
8	655	839	1	1	0.22	8	664	752	1	1	0.24
9	260	350	1	1	0.23	9	226	914	2	1	0.294
10	989	1108	1	1	0.26	10	521	615	2	1	0.236
11	468	624	2	1	0.19	11	378	511	2	1	0.266
12	445	527	2	1	0.25	12	201	443	2	1	0.182
13	300	535	2	1	0.34	13	331	456	2	1	0.27
14	445	647	2	1	0.3	14	345	851	2	1	0.188
15	422	609	2	1	0.34	15	405	513	2	1	0.332
16	542	475	2	1	0.31	16	710	954	2	1	0.246
17	607	583	2	1	0.29	17	383	868	2	1	0.274
18	401		2	1	0.23	18	357	391	2	1	0.29
19	238	485	2	1	0.27	19	337		2	1	0.208
20	444	600	2	1	0.23	20	532	957	1	2	0.33
21	213	196	1	2	0.26	21	699	783	1	2	0.14
22	146	243	1	2	0.28	22	458	520	1	2	0.272
23	110	150	1	2	0.22	23	397	806	1	2	0.252
24	182	550	1	2	0.3	24	271	650	1	2	0.312
25	228		1	2	0.25	25	775	841	1	2	0.284
26	198	563	1	2	0.22	26	377	435	1	2	0.166
27	160	309	1	2	0.25	27	366	453	1	2	0.332
28	214	231	1	2	0.17	28	429	591	1	2	0.24
29	322	325	1	2	0.37	29	641	688	1	2	0.266
30	242	427	1	2	0.29	30	638	757	2	2	0.28
31	355	845	2	2	0.22	31	267	556	2	2	0.356
32	267	406	2	2	0.27	32	498	1101	2	2	0.268
33	166	142	2	2	0.29	33	311	477	2	2	0.32
34	293	344	2	2	0.31	34	489	760	2	2	0.332
35	180	494	2	2	0.38	35	371	494	2	2	0.266
36	215	302	2	2	0.27	36	249		2	2	0.236
37	280		2	2	0.25	37	191	937	2	2	0.164
38	270	327	2	2	0.3
39	138	503	2	2	0.33

Dataset 1.Infection experiments.

Effect of nicotine on parasite load in infected bumblebees.

Figure 2. Intensity of C. bombi infections in bumblebees inoculated with pathogens previously exposed to nicotine for two hours (Experimental bees, n = 20) or to a control sucrose diet (Control bees, n = 20).

Faeces were checked after 7 days and 10 days post inoculation. Box plots show medians, 25^th and 75^th percentiles (P = N.S.).

Laboratory toxicity bioassays

In the “Starved” test, statistical evaluation of the survivorship of control and experimental bumblebees revealed that a nicotine diet was not a significant predictor of mortality (Log-rank Mantel Cox test χ² = 0.21, df = 1, P = 0.88; Figure 3A) (Dataset 2). Furthermore no effect of colony of origin and bee body weight on mortality was found (GLM, treatments: F = 1.1, df = 1, P = 0.29; Colony F = 0.46, df = 2, P = 0.63; body weight: F = 0.19, df = 1, P = 0.66). The median lethal time (LT50) for the two groups did not differ (control LT50: 39 hours, exp. bees LT50 = 37 hours).

Figure 3.

A: Cumulative survival of healthy bees fed with a sucrose solution with (blue line) or without (green line) nicotine and starved. B: Cumulative survival of healthy bees that received a daily diet of sucrose solution with (beige line), or without nicotine (blue line), or a single dose of nicotine on day one (green line).

In the “ad libitum food” test a Log-rank Mantel Cox test showed that a daily diet including nicotine was a significant predictor of mortality (χ² = 11.56, df = 2, n = 180, P = 0.003; Figure 3B) (Dataset 2). Pairwise statistical comparisons revealed that bees fed consistently with nicotine had significantly lower survivorship than ‘Nicotine-once’ and ‘Control bumblebees’ (P = 0.001), while the latter two experimental groups did not differ (P = 0.86). LT50 of bees fed daily with nicotine was 39 days while ‘Nicotine-once’ bumblebees and control bees had a LT50 of 44 and 43 days respectively. Colony of origin and body weight did not affect bee mortality (GLM, Colony: F = 0.35, df = 2, P = 0.71; body weight: F = 1.90, df = 1, P = 0.16), but we found a significant interaction between body weight and treatment (larger bees were less susceptible to nicotine, GLM, F = 5.12, df = 1, P = 0.025). Taken together, these findings indicate that nicotine has some detrimental effects on healthy bumblebees if consistently consumed for weeks but also that these effects are possibly quite weak.

Dataset 2.Revision 1. Laboratory toxicity bioassays.

Effect of nicotine on healthy bee survival. The ‘Body weight (ad libitum)’ column previously contained duplicate data, the correct values have now been reinstated.

Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine

In both “ad libitum food bees” and “starved bees” tests, a nicotine diet was not a significant predictor of survival (Log-rank Mantel Cox test: “ad libitum food bees”: n = 135, Nic-Nic vs Nic-Suc χ² = 0.3, P = 0.6; Nic-Nic vs Suc-Suc χ² = 0.01, P = 0.9; Nic-Suc vs Suc-Suc χ² = 0.7, P = 0.4; “Starved bees”, n = 76; Nic-Nic vs Nic-Suc χ² = 0.4, P = 0.5; Nic-Nic vs Suc-Suc χ² = 0.1, P = 0.7; Nic-Suc vs Suc-Suc χ² = 0.01, P = 0.9) (Dataset 3). Furthermore no effect of colony of origin on mortality was found (GLM, “ad libitum food bees”: F = 1.4, df = 2, P = 0.24; “Starved bees”: GLM, F = 2.02, df = 2, P = 0.14). The median lethal time LT50 for the three groups did not differ (“ad libitum food bees”: Suc-Suc LT50: 22 days, Nic-Suc LT50 = 23, days, Nic-Nic LT50 = 22; “Starved bees”: Suc-Suc LT50: 25 hours, Nic-Suc LT50 = 28 hours, Nic-Nic LT50 = 31 hours).

GLMM analysis revealed significant main effects of treatment (df = 2, F = 3.46, P = 0.03) and time since inoculation (df = 1, F = 57.3, P < 0.001) on infection intensity, but not colony of origin (df = 2, F = 1.64, P = 1.96). No interaction between diet, time and colony was significant. Overall bees caged in Petri dishes consumed less food over the entire duration of the experiment if exposed to nicotine (Anova test: F = 9.68, n = 90, df = 2, 87, P = 0.001; Dunnett T3 post hoc test: Suc-Suc vs Nic-Nic and Suc-Suc vs Nic-Suc P < 0.001) (Dataset 4). Infected bees showed a slight preference (54 ± 17%) for sucrose solution laced with nicotine (Paired samples t test, t = 2.14, df = 29, n = 30, P = 0.04).

Overall these findings indicate that, even though nicotine reduces the parasite load in infected bees, and such bees have a slight preference for sucrose solution laced with the alkaloid, there is no net benefit in term of survival for infected bees.

Bees (Starved)	Colony (Starved)	Treatment (Starved)	Treatnum (Starved)	Survival hours (Starved)	Colony (ad libitum)	Treatment (ad libitum)	Treatnum (ad libitum)	Survival days (ad libitum)
46	1	NN	3	2	1	NN	1	12
44	3	NS	2	3	1	NN	1	13
28	1	NS	2	14	1	NN	1	16
21	3	SS	1	12	1	NN	1	18
13	2	SS	1	19	1	NN	1	19
40	2	NS	2	9	1	NN	1	21
68	3	SS	1	12	1	NN	1	21
71	3	SS	1	13	1	NN	1	21
18	2	SS	1	18	1	NN	1	23
2	1	SS	1	15	1	NN	1	25
51	1	NN	3	18	1	NN	1	26
52	1	NN	3	16	1	NN	1	27
39	2	NS	2	18	1	NN	1	27
62	2	NN	3	29	1	NN	1	26
33	2	NS	2	17	1	NN	1	28
65	3	NN	3	20	2	NN	1	34
20	2	SS	1	20	2	NN	1	17
88	3	NN	3	19	2	NN	1	17
14	2	SS	1	19	2	NN	1	19
4	1	SS	1	24	2	NN	1	21
67	3	NN	3	24	2	NN	1	21
78	3	NS	2	21	2	NN	1	22
6	1	SS	1	22	2	NN	1	23
50	1	NN	3	25	2	NN	1	23
12	2	SS	1	23	2	NN	1	24
41	2	NS	2	23	2	NN	1	24
70	3	SS	1	23	2	NN	1	24
66	3	NN	3	24	2	NN	1	25
29	1	NS	2	24	2	NN	1	29
1	1	SS	1	25	2	NN	1	31
72	3	SS	1	25	3	NN	1	6
23	1	NS	2	26	3	NN	1	14
77	3	NS	2	27	3	NN	1	16
27	1	NS	2	27	3	NN	1	17
42	2	NS	2	28	3	NN	1	19
19	2	SS	1	29	3	NN	1	21
60	2	NN	3	30	3	NN	1	21
24	1	NS	2	30	3	NN	1	22
32	1	NS	2	30	3	NN	1	22
87	3	NN	3	30	3	NN	1	24
47	1	NN	3	31	3	NN	1	25
58	2	NN	3	32	3	NN	1	25
5	1	SS	1	32	3	NN	1	28
30	1	NS	2	33	3	NN	1	29
34	2	NS	2	34	3	NN	1	30
49	1	NN	3	34	1	NS	2	16
56	2	NN	3	35	1	NS	2	17
8	1	SS	1	35	1	NS	2	19
43	3	NS	2	36	1	NS	2	20
11	2	SS	1	36	1	NS	2	20
57	2	NN	3	36	1	NS	2	21
61	2	NN	3	39	1	NS	2	21
17	2	SS	1	39	1	NS	2	22
37	2	NS	2	40	1	NS	2	24
64	2	NN	3	40	1	NS	2	25
3	1	SS	1	40	1	NS	2	25
35	2	NS	2	40	1	NS	2	27
79	3	NS	2	42	1	NS	2	31
55	2	NN	3	42	1	NS	2	28
53	1	NN	3	43	1	NS	2	28
16	2	SS	1	44	2	NS	2	8
45	1	NN	3	44	2	NS	2	11
7	1	SS	1	45	2	NS	2	16
10	1	SS	1	46	2	NS	2	18
54	1	NN	3	46	2	NS	2	18
36	2	NS	2	47	2	NS	2	20
63	2	NN	3	48	2	NS	2	20
26	1	NS	2	49	2	NS	2	23
25	1	NS	2	50	2	NS	2	24
59	2	NN	3	50	2	NS	2	25
69	3	SS	1	50	2	NS	2	27
9	1	SS	1	51	2	NS	2	29
15	2	SS	1	52	2	NS	2	29
31	1	NS	2	52	2	NS	2	31
48	1	NN	3	52	2	NS	2	27
80	3	NS	2	53	3	NS	2	12
22	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	18
38	2	NS	2		3	NS	2	19
73	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	20
74	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	21
75	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	21
76	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
81	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
82	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
83	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	24
84	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	26
85	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	31
86	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	32
89	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	31
90	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	26
					1	SS	3	15
					1	SS	3	3
					1	SS	3	11
					1	SS	3	14
					1	SS	3	14
					1	SS	3	16
					1	SS	3	18
					1	SS	3	18
					1	SS	3	19
					1	SS	3	21
					1	SS	3	22
					1	SS	3	24
					1	SS	3	29
					1	SS	3	27
					1	SS	3	30
					2	SS	3	9
					2	SS	3	15
					2	SS	3	17
					2	SS	3	20
					2	SS	3	20
					2	SS	3	21
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	24
					2	SS	3	24
					2	SS	3	27
					2	SS	3	27
					2	SS	3	28
					2	SS	3	31
					3	SS	3	15
					3	SS	3	19
					3	SS	3	21
					3	SS	3	23
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	25
					3	SS	3	25
					3	SS	3	26
					3	SS	3	28
					3	SS	3	29
					3	SS	3	26
					3	SS	3	26

Dataset 3.Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine.

Dietary nicotine effect on parasite load and life expectancy in infected bumblebees.

Survival (Nic-Nic)	Nicotine	Nicotine	TOT Consumption (Nic-Nic)	Survival (Suc-Suc)	Sucrose	Sucrose	TOT Consumption (Suc-Suc)	Survival (Suc-Nic)	Sucrose	Nicotine	TOT consumption (Suc-Nic)
25	400	600	1025	24	0	200	200	23	400	600	1000
25	300	1000	1325	24	0	900	900	27	340	900	1240
34	200	1200	1434	22	10	1000	1010	29	200	100	300
24	0	1500	1524	24	50	100	150	29	350	1150	1500
24	800	800	1624	26	100	100	200	20	1400	900	2300
27	200	220	447	29	100	100	200	19	1400	1200	2600
21	400	1300	1721	24	100	200	300	27	600	400	1000
22	400	1400	1822	27	100	200	300	24	600	1000	1600
23	900	1300	2223	23	100	1400	1500	20	700	700	1400
21	600	600	1221	21	100	1500	1600	24	800	500	1300
23	1400	200	1623	24	120	100	220	23	900	950	1850
21	700	300	1021	28	200	200	400	23	800	400	1200
25	800	350	1175	22	200	1400	1600	22	300	800	1100
21	800	600	1421	20	300	300	600	21	1300	500	1800
21	800	700	1521	22	300	300	600	21	600	600	1200
24	800	900	1724	24	300	400	700	30	800	500	1300
21	1200	500	1721	27	500	100	600	26	1200	1100	2300
22	1000	300	1322	20	600	600	1200	19	1300	1200	2500
25	1000	400	1425	22	600	700	1300	21	1400	600	2000
22	1100	1200	2322	25	1000	0	1000	18	1400	1300	2700
27	1300	1200	2527	25	1000	1000	2000	20	1500	400	1900
19	1300	1400	2719	22	1300	1200	2500	20	1400	700	2100
24	1400	1100	2524	18	1400	1400	2800	18	1400	1300	2700
18	1400	1500	2918	19	1500	500	2000	18	1500	1400	2900
19	1400	1500	2919	19	1500	1100	2600	21	1500	1000	2500
23	1500	200	1723	21	1500	0	1500	32	100	50	150
21	1500	300	1821	25	0	300	300	23	50	400	450
21	1500	400	1921	30	300	0	300	20	1400	600	2000
26	1500	600	2126	29	500	500	1000	25	1500	1500	3000
19	1500	1000	2519	24	100	1500	1600	28	1300	200	1500

Dataset 4.Diet preference of caged bees.

Caged infected bee preference for nicotine-laced nectars.

Preference of freely flying bees for nicotine-laced flowers

Infected bumblebees allowed to forage on plastic flowers showed a significantly increased propensity to visit nicotine rewarding flowers when compared to healthy bees (t test, n = 31, 28, t = -2.4, df = 57, P = 0.016; Figure 4) (Dataset 5). Indeed on 100 consecutive choices infected bees visited the nicotine flowers on average 64.5 ± 13.8 (s.d.) times while healthy bees visited them 54.8 ± 19.4 (s.d.) times. Since test bees were introducing nicotine into the colony throughout testing, we controlled for prior exposure to nicotine effect on nicotine preference. Bees tested later in the experiment did not show a higher or lower nicotine preference (Spearman test, Infected bees: ρ = -0.21, n = 31, P = 0.3; Control bees n = 28, ρ = 0.041, P = 0.8). There was no correlation between pathogen load and the propensity of infected bees to visit flowers with nicotine-rich artificial nectar (Spearman test: n = 31, ρ = 0.19, df = 29, P = 0.28).

Figure 4. Percentage of preferred flowers rewording with nicotine-rich artificial nectar by infected bees (n = 31) and healthy bees (n = 28), (t test, P = 0.016).

Infected bees visited nicotine-containing flowers 64.5 ± 13.8 (s.d.) times while healthy bees visited them 54.8 ± 19.4 (s.d.) times.

Colony	Parasites	Nicotine visits/100 visits
1	0	48
1	0	59
1	0	58
1	0	60
1	0	65
1	0	59
1	0	50
1	0	48
1	0	63
1	0	65
1	0	57
1	0	46
1	0	59
1	0	62
2	0	58
2	0	18
2	0	21
2	0	71
2	0	15
2	0	85
2	0	69
2	0	65
2	0	80
2	0	77
2	0	70
2	0	16
2	0	29
2	0	33
3	277	81
3	283	68
3	366	90
3	392	82
3	298	64
3	366	38
3	432	56
3	229	67
3	280	59
3	404	70
3	361	67
3	453	59
3	285	64
3	353	54
3	455	57
3	262	66
4	229	54
4	373	59
4	220	46
4	133	53
4	348	88
4	565	95
4	243	79
4	67	76
4	333	50
4	83	62
4	212	59
4	309	50
4	475	81
4	280	56

Dataset 5.Behavioural test.

Percentage of preferred flowers rewording with nicotine-rich artificial nectar by infected and healthy bees.

Discussion

Here we demonstrate that parasitized bumblebees modify their diet preference and foraging behaviour, delaying the development of an infection. In our experimental setup the parasite infection induced an increased consumption of nicotine both in individually caged as well as in foraging bumblebees. Healthy bees exposed to nicotine suffer an appreciable cost, also in line with the key criteria for self-medication (Abbott, 2014; Clayton & Wolfe, 1993; Singer et al., 2009). However, despite this preferential ingestion of a “non-nutritive” antimicrobial alkaloid by infected bees, this behaviour appears to be of limited efficiency since dietary nicotine does not fully cure C. bombi infection, or increase longevity of infected bees, similarly to a recent study on the North American Bombus impatiens (Richardson et al., 2015). Nonetheless bumblebees in our study exhibited a reduced C. bombi load after daily consumption of the alkaloid making the existence of a potential self-medication phenomenon plausible. In nature, infection entails an array of costs and higher mortality under stressful conditions (Alghamdi et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2000; Brown et al., 2003; Gegear et al., 2006). As a consequence, any reduction in the severity or progression of infection in bees, induced by mechanisms such as the consumption of nectar containing curative alkaloids (e.g. gelsemine (Manson et al., 2010), anabasine and nicotine (Richardson et al., 2015)), might be beneficial in terms of fitness for both bees and colonies.

Even if we cannot completely exclude that the limited effect of nicotine is due to the initial challenge being too strong for the nicotine to have a measurable influence on life expectancy, both nicotine concentration and Crithidia inocula used in our study simulated natural doses. It is, however, possible that the nicotine concentration available to workers within the colony is substantially different from that found in flowers. At one end of the scale of possibilities, nicotine-laced nectar might be regurgitated into honeypots containing nicotine-free nectar, resulting in further dilution of the nicotine concentration and even lower anti-microbial effects. On the other hand, if some individual foragers that have discovered alkaloid-containing nectar deposit it predominantly into certain honeypots, and concentration is further increased by evaporation and possibly modified by enzymatic addition, then such honeypots could contain substantially higher nicotine concentrations than found in floral nectar (Thomson, 2015). It is possible that such honeypots could be a kind of colony ‘pharmacy’ specifically used for self-medication of infected workers, or to feed larvae to limit the spread of an infection within the colony (James Thomson, personal communication). Similar considerations apply to pollen, which might also contain alkaloids with antimicrobial properties (Thomson, 2015). Additional field and mesocosm tests, as well measurements of alkaloid concentration in colony honeypots are thus needed to evaluate the actual concentrations to which different colony members and the brood are exposed, and thus to clarify the actual benefits of differential foraging for such substances.

Nicotine also has a costly effect on uninfected individuals, as shown by our toxicological assays. A daily diet containing nicotine, lasting more than two months, reduced the life expectancy of bumblebees, and this effect was stronger in smaller bees. This might possibly be aggravated in the wild, where bees are exposed to other stressors and do not have access to ad libitum food. However, we note that differences in mortality rate between controls and nicotine-treated bees started to be evident only after 20 days from the first exposure suggesting that in nature this detrimental effect may be mitigated due to the relatively short lifespan of foragers in the wild (da Silva-Matos & Garófalo, 2000). Moreover, in nature, bees are unlikely to visit a single nectar source continuously for weeks as in our experiments, further reducing the negative effect of nicotine intake. In infected bumblebees, which show a shorter lifespan than healthy ones, the detrimental effect of nicotine is no longer evident suggesting that detoxification costs might be counterbalanced by the advantages in slowing the progression of the infection. However, contrary to our prediction, we found no trade-off between costs and benefits in terms of survival, and infected bumblebee lifespan was not affected by the consumption on nicotine. Our analysis focussed on individual bumblebees in isolation and there might be many other subtle long term benefits we have not explored, such as possible benefits at the colony level. It might be that lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Infected bumblebees have impaired learning abilities (Alghamdi et al., 2008; Gegear et al., 2006) and a reduction in parasite load might affect foraging efficiency or nursing ability, in turn enhancing colony productivity. Moreover, nicotine might be beneficial in slowing the progression of the infection through a colony, allowing, for example, the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper.

The cost imposed by the consumption of nicotine in our experiments may explain why healthy bees did not constantly consume high doses of nicotine (Tiedeken et al., 2014). Similarly, infected bees kept in Petri dishes reduced the overall uptake of food if exposed to nicotine. This is surprising given that those bumblebees also had a slight preference for sucrose solution laced with the alkaloid, and free-flying healthy bumblebees were not repelled by artificial nectar laced with nicotine. While these behavioural preferences may be explained by the impact that some nectar alkaloids, including nicotine, have on learning and memory in bees (Chittka & Peng, 2013; Thany & Gauthier, 2005; Wright et al., 2013), the mechanism behind the overall reduced consumption caused by nicotine remains unexplained. In humans at least, it is well established that nicotine has appetite-reducing effects (Jessen et al., 2005).

Currently it is unclear how nicotine acts on C. bombi. Nicotine is a highly toxic molecule (Benowitz, 1998) that acts against a wide spectrum of bacterial and fungal pathogens (Pavia et al., 2000). House sparrows and several finch species, for example, add smoked cigarette butts retaining substantial amounts of nicotine to their nests to reduce mite infestations (Suárez-Rodríguez et al., 2013). While our in vivo microbiological experiments prove the antimicrobial activity of nicotine against the pathogen when ingested, they also suggest that nicotine does not directly interfere with the protozoan’s viability, at least when measured as infectivity. As suggested by Manson et al. (2010), who found similar effects of the natural alkaloid gelsemine, an alkaloid-rich diet might increase a bee’s excretion rate, as occurs for nectarivorous bird (Tadmor-Melamed et al., 2004), effectively “flushing” C. bombi cells from the gut. Another possibility might be that nicotine, or perhaps its metabolites, directly modify the mid-gut epithelium or the environment of its lumen, making it less suitable for the parasite.

In conclusion, we showed that when infected, bumblebees use a nectar alkaloid, slowing the progression of the infection. Nicotine consumption did not affect bee lifespan but the reduction in the parasite load may have other likely subtle benefits both for individual bees and colony. Recent findings confirm the suggestion that the preferential ingestion of natural nectar secondary metabolites in pollinators might play a key role in mediating pathogen transmission within and between colonies (Richardson et al., 2015) or interactions among pollinators and their parasites (Manson et al., 2010). The observed increased ingestion of a nectar alkaloid might be a generalized response to sickness and not just to Crithidia. Similarly, our results and other recent studies (Gherman et al., 2014; Richardson et al., 2015) provide potential evidence for self-medication mediated by the consumption of plant secondary metabolites. Yet, the conditions under which nicotine and other alkaloids consumption provides benefits to either bees or plants remain to be identified. We thus believe that a careful approach to interpreting impacts of plant metabolites on insect parasites is warranted. The contention that secondary metabolites in nectar may be under selection from pollinators, or used by plants to enhance their own reproductive success (Chittka & Peng, 2013; Thomson et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2013), should ideally be confirmed with further studies, which examine the impacts of these metabolites on both bee and plant fitness under field-realistic conditions.

Data availability

F1000Research: Dataset 1. Infection experiments, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44610 (Baracchi et al., 2015a).

F1000Research: Dataset 2. Revision 1. Laboratory toxicity bioassays, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d48008 (Baracchi et al., 2015b).

F1000Research: Dataset 3. Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44613 (Baracchi et al., 2015c).

F1000Research: Dataset 4. Diet preference of caged bees, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44614 (Baracchi et al., 2015d).

F1000Research: Dataset 5. Behavioural test, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44615 (Baracchi et al., 2015e).

Author contributions

D.B. conceived the study and carried out the experiments. D.B. and M.J.F.B. designed the experiments. L.C. made significant contributions to the interpretation of the data. All authors contributed in writing the first version of the manuscript and have agreed the final content. L.C. revised the paper.

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

D.B. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7^th European Community Framework Programme.

The authors confirm that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Anna Woodhouse for helping in behavioural experiments, Dr. Gemma Baron for providing Crithidia samples, Dr. Caroline Brennan for nicotine solution, Thomas Ingraham (an employee of F1000Research) and three referees for comments on the manuscript.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Abbott J: Self-medication in insects: current evidence and future perspectives. Ecol Entomol. 2014; 39(3): 273–280. Publisher Full Text
Alghamdi A, Dalton L, Phillis A, et al.: Immune response impairs learning in free-flying bumble-bees. Biol Lett. 2008; 4(5): 479–481. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 1 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015a. Data Source
Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 2 in: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? F1000Research. 2015b. Data Source
Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 3 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015c. Data Source
Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 4 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015d. Data Source
Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 5 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015e. Data Source
Benowitz NL: Nicotine safety and toxicity. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. 1998. Reference Source
Bernays EA, Singer MS: Insect defences: taste alteration and endoparasites. Nature. 2005; 436(7050): 476. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Brown MJF, Loosli R, Schmid-Hempel P: Condition-dependent expression of virulence in a trypanosome infecting bumblebees. Oikos. 2000; 91(3): 421–427. Publisher Full Text
Brown MJF, Schmid-Hempel R, Schmid-Hempel P: Strong context-dependent virulence in a host–parasite system: reconciling genetic evidence with theory. J Anim Ecol. 2003; 72(6): 994–1002. Publisher Full Text
Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, et al.: Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011; 108(2): 662–667. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Chittka L: Sensorimotor learning in bumblebees: long-term retention and reversal training. J Exp Biol. 1998; 201(4): 515–524. Reference Source
Chittka L, Peng F: Neuroscience. Caffeine boosts bees’ memories. Science. 2013; 339(6124): 1157–1159. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Clayton DH, Wolfe ND: The adaptive significance of self-medication. Trends Ecol Evol. 1993; 8(2): 60–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Cowan MM: Plant products as antimicrobial agents. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999; 12(4): 564–582. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
da Silva-Matos EV, Garófalo CA: Worker life tables, survivorship, and longevity in colonies of Bombus (Fervidobombus) atratus (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Rev Biol Trop. 2000; 48(2–3): 657–663. PubMed Abstract
de Miranda JR, Genersch E: Deformed wing virus. J Invertebr Pathol. 2010; 103(Suppl 1): S48–S61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
de Roode JC, Lefèvre T: Behavioral immunity in insects. Insects. 2012; 3(3): 789–820. Publisher Full Text
de Roode JC, Lefèvre T, Hunter MD: Ecology. Self-medication in animals. Science. 2013; 340(6129): 150–151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Debban CL, Dyer KA: No evidence for behavioural adaptations to nematode parasitism by the fly Drosophila putrida. J Evol Biol. 2013; 26(8): 1646–1654. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Detzel A, Wink M: Attraction, deterrence or intoxication of bees (Apis mellifera) by plant allelochemicals. Chemoecology. 1993; 4(1): 8–18. Publisher Full Text
Durrer S, Schmid-Hempel P: Shared use of flowers leads to horizontal pathogen transmission. Proc Biol Sci. 1994; 258(1353): 299–302. Publisher Full Text
Dyer AG, Chittka L: Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) sacrifice foraging speed to solve difficult colour discrimination tasks. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004; 190(9): 759–763. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Field A: Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications, 2009. Reference Source
Fürst MA, McMahon DP, Osborne JL, et al.: Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature. 2014; 506(7488): 364–366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Gegear RJ, Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Bumble-bee foragers infected by a gut parasite have an impaired ability to utilize floral information. Proc Biol Sci. 2006; 273(1590): 1073–1078. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Gherman BI, Denner A, Bobiş O, et al.: Pathogen-associated self-medication behavior in the honeybee Apis mellifera. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2014; 68(11): 1777–1784. Publisher Full Text
Hadacek F: Secondary metabolites as plant traits: current assessment and future perspectives. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2002; 21(4): 273–322. Publisher Full Text
Jessen A, Buemann B, Toubro S, et al.: The appetite-suppressant effect of nicotine is enhanced by caffeine. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2005; 7(4): 327–333. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lefèvre T, Oliver L, Hunter MD, et al.: Evidence for trans-generational medication in nature. Ecol Lett. 2010; 13(12): 1485–1493. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Logan A, Ruiz-González MX, Brown MJF: The impact of host starvation on parasite development and population dynamics in an intestinal trypanosome parasite of bumble bees. Parasitology. 2005; 130(Pt 6): 637–642. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lozano GA: Parasitic stress and self-medication in wild animals. Adv Stud Behav. 1998; 27: 291–318. Reference Source
Manson JS, Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Consumption of a nectar alkaloid reduces pathogen load in bumble bees. Oecologia. 2010; 162(1): 81–89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
McArt SH, Koch H, Irwin RE, et al.: Arranging the bouquet of disease: floral traits and the transmission of plant and animal pathogens. Ecol Lett. 2014; 17(5): 624–636. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
McMahon DP, Fürst MA, Casper J, et al.: A sting in the spit: widespread cross-infection of multiple RNA viruses across wild and managed bees. J Anim Ecol. 2015; 84: 615–624. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Michalakis Y: Parasitism and the evolution of life-history traits. In Thomas F Guégan JF Renaud F (eds), Ecology and evolution of parasitism. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. 2009. Reference Source
Milan NF, Kacsoh BZ, Schlenke TA: Alcohol consumption as self-medication against blood-borne parasites in the fruit fly. Curr Biol. 2012; 22(6): 488–493. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Mooney KA, Agrawal AA: Plant genotype shapes ant-aphid interactions: implications for community structure and indirect plant defense. Am Nat. 2008; 171(6): E195–E205. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Moore J: Parasites and the behavior of animals. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. 2002. Reference Source
Naef R, Jaquier A, Velluz A, et al.: From the linden flower to linden honey--volatile constituents of linden nectar, the extract of bee-stomach and ripe honey. Chem Biodivers. 2004; 1(12): 1870–1879. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Oliver KM, Degnan PH, Burke GR, et al.: Facultative symbionts in aphids and the horizontal transfer of ecologically important traits. Annu Rev Entomol. 2010; 55: 247–266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Contact networks and transmission of an intestinal pathogen in bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) colonies. Oecologia. 2007; 154(2): 411–421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Pavia CS, Pierre A, Nowakowski J: Antimicrobial activity of nicotine against a spectrum of bacterial and fungal pathogens. J Med Microbiol. 2000; 49(7): 675–676. PubMed Abstract
Raine NE, Chittka L: The correlation of learning speed and natural foraging success in bumble-bees. Proc Biol Sci. 2008; 275(1636): 803–808. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Raine NE, Ings TC, Ramos-Rodriguez O, et al.: Intercolony variation in learning performance of a wild British bumblebee population (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus terrestris audax). Entomol Gen. 2006; 28(4): 241–256. Publisher Full Text
Richardson LL, Adler LS, Leonard AS, et al.: Secondary metabolites in floral nectar reduce parasite infections in bumblebees. Proc Biol Sci. 2015; 282(1803): pii: 20142471. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Rodriguez E, Wrangham R: Zoopharmacognosy: the use of medicinal plants by animals. In Downum KR, Romeo JT, Stafford HA (eds), Phytochemical potential of tropical plants. Springer: USA. 1993; 27: 89–105. Publisher Full Text
Rosenkranz P, Aumeier P, Ziegelmann B: Biology and control of Varroa destructor. J Invertebr Pathol. 2010; 103(Suppl 1): S96–S119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Saleh N, Chittka L: The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2006; 61(2): 215–220. Publisher Full Text
Schmid-Hempel P: Parasites in social insects. Princeton University Press: New Jersey. USA. 1998. Reference Source
Schmid-Hempel P, Schmid-Hempel R: Transmission of a pathogen in Bombus terrestris, with a note on division of labour in social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1993; 33(5): 319–327. Publisher Full Text
Schmid-Hempel R, Eckhardt M, Goulson D, et al.: The invasion of southern South America by imported bumblebees and associated parasites. J Anim Ecol. 2013; 83(4): 823–837. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Shykoff JA, Schmid-Hempel P: Incidence and effects of four parasites in natural populations of bumble bees in Switzerland. Apidologie. 1991; 22(2): 117–125. Publisher Full Text
Simone-Finstrom MD, Spivak M: Increased resin collection after parasite challenge: a case of self-medication in honey bees? PLoS One. 2012; 7(3): e34601. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Singer MS, Mace KC, Bernays EA: Self-medication as adaptive plasticity: increased ingestion of plant toxins by parasitized caterpillars. PLoS One. 2009; 4(3): e4796. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Smilanich AM, Mason PA, Sprung L, et al.: Complex effects of parasitoids on pharmacophagy and diet choice of a polyphagous caterpillar. Oecologia. 2011; 165(4): 995–1005. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
St Leger RJ: Integument as a barrier to microbial infections. In Binnington K, Retnakara A (eds), Physiology of the insect epidermis CSIRO. 1991.
Suárez-Rodríguez M, López-Rull I, Garcia CM: Incorporation of cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban birds: new ingredients for an old recipe? Biol Lett. 2013; 9(1): 20120931. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Tadmor-Melamed H, Markman S, Arieli A, et al.: Limited ability of Palestine sunbirds Nectarinia osea to cope with pyridine alkaloids in nectar of tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca. Funct Ecol. 2004; 18(6): 844–850. Publisher Full Text
Thany SH, Gauthier M: Nicotine injected into the antennal lobes induces a rapid modulation of sucrose threshold and improves short-term memory in the honeybee Apis mellifera. Brain Res. 2005; 1039(1–2): 216–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thomson JD: Referee Report For: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/56l] F1000Res. 2015; 4: 73. Publisher Full Text
Thomson JD, Draguleasa MA, Tan MG: Flowers with caffeinated nectar receive more pollination. Arthropod Plant Interact. 2015; 9(1): 1–7. Publisher Full Text
Tiedeken EJ, Stout JC, Stevenson PC, et al.: Bumblebees are not deterred by ecologically relevant concentrations of nectar toxins. J Exp Biol. 2014; 217(pt 9): 1620–1625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Tragust S, Mitteregger B, Barone V, et al.: Ants disinfect fungus-exposed brood by oral uptake and spread of their poison. Curr Biol. 2013; 23(1): 76–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Wrangham RW: Relationship of chimpanzee leaf-swallowing to a tapeworm infection. Am J Primatol. 1995; 37(4): 297–303. Publisher Full Text
Wright GA, Baker DD, Palmer MJ, et al.: Caffeine in floral nectar enhances a pollinator’s memory of reward. Science. 2013; 339(6124): 1202–1204. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 19 Mar 2015

Author details Author details

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

D.B. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 29 Oct 2015, 4:73

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 26 May 2015, 4:73

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.2

version 1

Published: 19 Mar 2015, 4:73

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.1

© 2015 Baracchi D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] F1000Research 2015, 4:73 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 26 May 2015

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 22 Sep 2015

Michael Simone-Finstrom, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r8767

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 08 Jul 2015

James D. Thomson, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r9415

I have now looked through the new version and can happily remove my reservations regarding the earlier version. My main biological concern—that dosages of secondary metabolites need to be considered in the light of honeypot dynamics—is now given an intelligent discussion. The problems with table entries and figure labels have also been corrected. I did not see a need to change the title, but I agree that the new title is good and appropriate.

Competing Interests: Statement regarding conflict. I have two connections to this research. First, Lars Chittka did a stint of postdoctoral work in my lab at Stony Brook; we collaborated on several papers in the 1990s, and co-edited a book in 2001. We correspond occasionally but have not had an active collaboration since then. Second, I later supervised postdoctoral research on bumble bee disease and nectar chemistry by Robert Gegear, dissertations by Michael Otterstatter and Jessamyn Manson, and undergraduate research by Miruna Draguleasa. I share authorship on several of their papers that are cited prominently by Baracchi et al.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 19 Mar 2015

Views

Reviewer Report 20 Apr 2015

Marla Spivak, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8216

Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory.

There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested.

I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results.

Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

29 Oct 2015

Author Response

Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. ... Continue reading Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory.

Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly.

Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested.
I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level.

Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted.
Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory.

Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly.

Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested.
I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level.

Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted.
Competing Interests: n/a Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

29 Oct 2015

Author Response

Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. ... Continue reading Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory.

Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly.

Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested.
I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level.

Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted.
Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory.

Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly.

Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested.
I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level.

Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted.
Competing Interests: n/a Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 10 Apr 2015

Michael Simone-Finstrom, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8215

The authors presented a fairly comprehensive set of experiments in order to elucidate the role that nicotine may have in self-medication of bumblebees against Chrithidia infection. The experiments progress well, starting with controlled lab infection studies to lab-based diet and lifespan analysis to a semi-field foraging test. I think the authors sufficiently described the methods and subsequent results and mostly had an appropriate discussion of the relevant findings. I just have a few small issues that the authors could address to improve and clarify aspects of the manuscript. But overall it is a strong paper.

First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings.

Generally, tables and figures could be labeled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet. The legend for Figure 3 should explicitly state that these bees were all uninfected, since this is an important point, and since the lifespan data of infected bees is not represented in a figure.

For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done.

Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Chrithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)? Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount.

Trade-off: Important to note that Chrithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study).

I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect.

Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Chrithidia, but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get.

A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

29 Oct 2015

Author Response

Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just ... Continue reading Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead.

Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above.

Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done.

Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern.

Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)?

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test.

Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount.

Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used.

Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study).

Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version.

Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect.

Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version.

Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia, but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get.

Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion.

Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity.

Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues.
Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead.

Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above.

Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done.

Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern.

Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)?

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test.

Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount.

Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used.

Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study).

Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version.

Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect.

Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version.

Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia, but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get.

Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion.

Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity.

Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues.
Competing Interests: n/a Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

29 Oct 2015

Author Response

Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just ... Continue reading Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead.

Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above.

Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done.

Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern.

Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)?

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test.

Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount.

Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used.

Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study).

Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version.

Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect.

Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version.

Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia, but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get.

Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion.

Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity.

Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues.
Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead.

Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above.

Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done.

Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern.

Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)?

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test.

Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount.

Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used.

Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study).

Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version.

Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect.

Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version.

Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia, but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get.

Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion.

Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity.

Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues.
Competing Interests: n/a Close
Report a concern

Views

120

Reviewer Report 27 Mar 2015

James D. Thomson, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8036

Content of paper. This paper reports a set of nicely designed experiments aimed at determining whether Bombus terrestris self-medicates against trypanosome (Crithidia bombi) infection by seeking and consuming nicotine-laced floral nectar. Using captive bee colonies and artificial flowers in laboratory conditions permits well-controlled manipulative experiments that would be effectively impossible in the field. The results are ambivalent, in that dietary nicotine does reduce the intensity of gut infection, and infected bees do seek out nicotine, but attempts to demonstrate improved health in terms of worker bee lifespan yield negative results. For the most part, I endorse both the interpretation of these results and the recognition by Baracchi et al. that further research is needed to settle the question of self-medication.

I do have three reservations about the interpretations offered here, however, and I think the paper would be improved by some additional discussion of these issues. First, any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance.

Second, by choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered.

Third, by considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae (who are the primary consumers of that pollen) may be receiving very different doses than adult bees.

In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity.

Errors. In this review process, the lack of line numbers, or an editable form of the MS, makes it hard to flag such things as unclear phrases. Here are a few mistakes that should be addressed, however:
In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled.
In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased.
I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ad libitum” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error.

Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic.
The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile?

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

29 Oct 2015

Author Response

Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state ... Continue reading Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance.

Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point.

Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered.

Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers.

Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees.

Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion

Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity.

Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. Instead, we now carefully discuss all these issues.

Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled.
In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased.
I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ad libitum” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error.

Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them.

Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets

Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile?

Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section.
Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance.

Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point.

Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered.

Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers.

Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees.

Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion

Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity.

Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. Instead, we now carefully discuss all these issues.

Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled.
In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased.
I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ad libitum” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error.

Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them.

Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets

Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile?

Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section.
Competing Interests: n/a Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

29 Oct 2015

Author Response

Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state ... Continue reading Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance.

Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point.

Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered.

Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers.

Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees.

Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion

Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity.

Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. Instead, we now carefully discuss all these issues.

Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled.
In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased.
I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ad libitum” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error.

Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them.

Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets

Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile?

Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section.
Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance.

Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point.

Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered.

Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers.

Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees.

Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion

Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity.

Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. Instead, we now carefully discuss all these issues.

Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled.
In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased.
I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ad libitum” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error.

Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them.

Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets

Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile?

Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section.
Competing Interests: n/a Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 19 Mar 2015

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 29 Oct 15
Version 2 (revision) 26 May 15	read	read
Version 1 19 Mar 15	read	read	read

James D. Thomson, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Michael Simone-Finstrom, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA
Marla Spivak, University of Minnesota, St Paul, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

22 Sep 2015 | for Version 2

Michael Simone-Finstrom, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

27 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

37 Views

08 Jul 2015 | for Version 2

James D. Thomson, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

37 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

Statement regarding conflict. I have two connections to this research. First, Lars Chittka did a stint of postdoctoral work in my lab at Stony Brook; we collaborated on several papers in the 1990s, and co-edited a book in 2001. We correspond occasionally but have not had an active collaboration since then. Second, I later supervised postdoctoral research on bumble bee disease and nectar chemistry by Robert Gegear, dissertations by Michael Otterstatter and Jessamyn Manson, and undergraduate research by Miruna Draguleasa. I share authorship on several of their papers that are cited prominently by Baracchi et al.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

81 Views

20 Apr 2015 | for Version 1

Marla Spivak, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA

81 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory.

Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly.

Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested.
I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level.

Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted.

View more View less

Competing Interests

n/a

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

59 Views

10 Apr 2015 | for Version 1

Michael Simone-Finstrom, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

59 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead.

Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above.

Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done.

Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern.

Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)?

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test.

Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount.

Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used.

Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study).

Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version.

Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect.

Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version.

Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia, but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get.

Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion.

Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity.

Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues.

View more View less

Competing Interests

n/a

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

120 Views

27 Mar 2015 | for Version 1

James D. Thomson, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

120 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Competing Interests

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

29 Oct 2015

Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance.

Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point.

Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered.

Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers.

Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees.

Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion

Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity.

Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. Instead, we now carefully discuss all these issues.

Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled.
In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased.
I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ad libitum” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error.

Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them.

Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic.

Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets

Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile?

Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section.

View more View less

Competing Interests

n/a

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (1.74KB)

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (3.40KB)

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (1.92KB)

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (0.56KB)

[1] Abbott J: Self-medication in insects: current evidence and future perspectives. Ecol Entomol. 2014; 39(3): 273–280. Publisher Full Text

[2] Alghamdi A, Dalton L, Phillis A, et al.: Immune response impairs learning in free-flying bumble-bees. Biol Lett. 2008; 4(5): 479–481. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 1 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015a. Data Source

[4] Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 2 in: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? F1000Research. 2015b. Data Source

[5] Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 3 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015c. Data Source

[6] Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 4 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015d. Data Source

[7] Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 5 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015e. Data Source

[8] Benowitz NL: Nicotine safety and toxicity. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. 1998. Reference Source

[9] Bernays EA, Singer MS: Insect defences: taste alteration and endoparasites. Nature. 2005; 436(7050): 476. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] Brown MJF, Loosli R, Schmid-Hempel P: Condition-dependent expression of virulence in a trypanosome infecting bumblebees. Oikos. 2000; 91(3): 421–427. Publisher Full Text

[11] Brown MJF, Schmid-Hempel R, Schmid-Hempel P: Strong context-dependent virulence in a host–parasite system: reconciling genetic evidence with theory. J Anim Ecol. 2003; 72(6): 994–1002. Publisher Full Text

[12] Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, et al.: Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011; 108(2): 662–667. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] Chittka L: Sensorimotor learning in bumblebees: long-term retention and reversal training. J Exp Biol. 1998; 201(4): 515–524. Reference Source

[14] Chittka L, Peng F: Neuroscience. Caffeine boosts bees’ memories. Science. 2013; 339(6124): 1157–1159. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] Clayton DH, Wolfe ND: The adaptive significance of self-medication. Trends Ecol Evol. 1993; 8(2): 60–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] Cowan MM: Plant products as antimicrobial agents. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999; 12(4): 564–582. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[17] da Silva-Matos EV, Garófalo CA: Worker life tables, survivorship, and longevity in colonies of Bombus (Fervidobombus) atratus (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Rev Biol Trop. 2000; 48(2–3): 657–663. PubMed Abstract

[18] de Miranda JR, Genersch E: Deformed wing virus. J Invertebr Pathol. 2010; 103(Suppl 1): S48–S61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] de Roode JC, Lefèvre T: Behavioral immunity in insects. Insects. 2012; 3(3): 789–820. Publisher Full Text

[20] de Roode JC, Lefèvre T, Hunter MD: Ecology. Self-medication in animals. Science. 2013; 340(6129): 150–151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] Debban CL, Dyer KA: No evidence for behavioural adaptations to nematode parasitism by the fly Drosophila putrida. J Evol Biol. 2013; 26(8): 1646–1654. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] Detzel A, Wink M: Attraction, deterrence or intoxication of bees (Apis mellifera) by plant allelochemicals. Chemoecology. 1993; 4(1): 8–18. Publisher Full Text

[23] Durrer S, Schmid-Hempel P: Shared use of flowers leads to horizontal pathogen transmission. Proc Biol Sci. 1994; 258(1353): 299–302. Publisher Full Text

[24] Dyer AG, Chittka L: Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) sacrifice foraging speed to solve difficult colour discrimination tasks. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004; 190(9): 759–763. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] Field A: Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications, 2009. Reference Source

[26] Fürst MA, McMahon DP, Osborne JL, et al.: Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature. 2014; 506(7488): 364–366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] Gegear RJ, Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Bumble-bee foragers infected by a gut parasite have an impaired ability to utilize floral information. Proc Biol Sci. 2006; 273(1590): 1073–1078. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] Gherman BI, Denner A, Bobiş O, et al.: Pathogen-associated self-medication behavior in the honeybee Apis mellifera. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2014; 68(11): 1777–1784. Publisher Full Text

[29] Hadacek F: Secondary metabolites as plant traits: current assessment and future perspectives. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2002; 21(4): 273–322. Publisher Full Text

[30] Jessen A, Buemann B, Toubro S, et al.: The appetite-suppressant effect of nicotine is enhanced by caffeine. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2005; 7(4): 327–333. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] Lefèvre T, Oliver L, Hunter MD, et al.: Evidence for trans-generational medication in nature. Ecol Lett. 2010; 13(12): 1485–1493. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] Logan A, Ruiz-González MX, Brown MJF: The impact of host starvation on parasite development and population dynamics in an intestinal trypanosome parasite of bumble bees. Parasitology. 2005; 130(Pt 6): 637–642. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] Lozano GA: Parasitic stress and self-medication in wild animals. Adv Stud Behav. 1998; 27: 291–318. Reference Source

[34] Manson JS, Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Consumption of a nectar alkaloid reduces pathogen load in bumble bees. Oecologia. 2010; 162(1): 81–89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] McArt SH, Koch H, Irwin RE, et al.: Arranging the bouquet of disease: floral traits and the transmission of plant and animal pathogens. Ecol Lett. 2014; 17(5): 624–636. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] McMahon DP, Fürst MA, Casper J, et al.: A sting in the spit: widespread cross-infection of multiple RNA viruses across wild and managed bees. J Anim Ecol. 2015; 84: 615–624. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] Michalakis Y: Parasitism and the evolution of life-history traits. In Thomas F Guégan JF Renaud F (eds), Ecology and evolution of parasitism. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. 2009. Reference Source

[38] Milan NF, Kacsoh BZ, Schlenke TA: Alcohol consumption as self-medication against blood-borne parasites in the fruit fly. Curr Biol. 2012; 22(6): 488–493. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] Mooney KA, Agrawal AA: Plant genotype shapes ant-aphid interactions: implications for community structure and indirect plant defense. Am Nat. 2008; 171(6): E195–E205. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] Moore J: Parasites and the behavior of animals. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. 2002. Reference Source

[41] Naef R, Jaquier A, Velluz A, et al.: From the linden flower to linden honey--volatile constituents of linden nectar, the extract of bee-stomach and ripe honey. Chem Biodivers. 2004; 1(12): 1870–1879. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] Oliver KM, Degnan PH, Burke GR, et al.: Facultative symbionts in aphids and the horizontal transfer of ecologically important traits. Annu Rev Entomol. 2010; 55: 247–266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Contact networks and transmission of an intestinal pathogen in bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) colonies. Oecologia. 2007; 154(2): 411–421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] Pavia CS, Pierre A, Nowakowski J: Antimicrobial activity of nicotine against a spectrum of bacterial and fungal pathogens. J Med Microbiol. 2000; 49(7): 675–676. PubMed Abstract

[45] Raine NE, Chittka L: The correlation of learning speed and natural foraging success in bumble-bees. Proc Biol Sci. 2008; 275(1636): 803–808. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[46] Raine NE, Ings TC, Ramos-Rodriguez O, et al.: Intercolony variation in learning performance of a wild British bumblebee population (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus terrestris audax). Entomol Gen. 2006; 28(4): 241–256. Publisher Full Text

[47] Richardson LL, Adler LS, Leonard AS, et al.: Secondary metabolites in floral nectar reduce parasite infections in bumblebees. Proc Biol Sci. 2015; 282(1803): pii: 20142471. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[48] Rodriguez E, Wrangham R: Zoopharmacognosy: the use of medicinal plants by animals. In Downum KR, Romeo JT, Stafford HA (eds), Phytochemical potential of tropical plants. Springer: USA. 1993; 27: 89–105. Publisher Full Text

[49] Rosenkranz P, Aumeier P, Ziegelmann B: Biology and control of Varroa destructor. J Invertebr Pathol. 2010; 103(Suppl 1): S96–S119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[50] Saleh N, Chittka L: The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2006; 61(2): 215–220. Publisher Full Text

[51] Schmid-Hempel P: Parasites in social insects. Princeton University Press: New Jersey. USA. 1998. Reference Source

[52] Schmid-Hempel P, Schmid-Hempel R: Transmission of a pathogen in Bombus terrestris, with a note on division of labour in social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1993; 33(5): 319–327. Publisher Full Text

[53] Schmid-Hempel R, Eckhardt M, Goulson D, et al.: The invasion of southern South America by imported bumblebees and associated parasites. J Anim Ecol. 2013; 83(4): 823–837. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] Shykoff JA, Schmid-Hempel P: Incidence and effects of four parasites in natural populations of bumble bees in Switzerland. Apidologie. 1991; 22(2): 117–125. Publisher Full Text

[55] Simone-Finstrom MD, Spivak M: Increased resin collection after parasite challenge: a case of self-medication in honey bees? PLoS One. 2012; 7(3): e34601. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[56] Singer MS, Mace KC, Bernays EA: Self-medication as adaptive plasticity: increased ingestion of plant toxins by parasitized caterpillars. PLoS One. 2009; 4(3): e4796. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[57] Smilanich AM, Mason PA, Sprung L, et al.: Complex effects of parasitoids on pharmacophagy and diet choice of a polyphagous caterpillar. Oecologia. 2011; 165(4): 995–1005. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[58] St Leger RJ: Integument as a barrier to microbial infections. In Binnington K, Retnakara A (eds), Physiology of the insect epidermis CSIRO. 1991.

[59] Suárez-Rodríguez M, López-Rull I, Garcia CM: Incorporation of cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban birds: new ingredients for an old recipe? Biol Lett. 2013; 9(1): 20120931. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[60] Tadmor-Melamed H, Markman S, Arieli A, et al.: Limited ability of Palestine sunbirds Nectarinia osea to cope with pyridine alkaloids in nectar of tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca. Funct Ecol. 2004; 18(6): 844–850. Publisher Full Text

[61] Thany SH, Gauthier M: Nicotine injected into the antennal lobes induces a rapid modulation of sucrose threshold and improves short-term memory in the honeybee Apis mellifera. Brain Res. 2005; 1039(1–2): 216–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[62] Thomson JD: Referee Report For: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/56l] F1000Res. 2015; 4: 73. Publisher Full Text

[63] Thomson JD, Draguleasa MA, Tan MG: Flowers with caffeinated nectar receive more pollination. Arthropod Plant Interact. 2015; 9(1): 1–7. Publisher Full Text

[64] Tiedeken EJ, Stout JC, Stevenson PC, et al.: Bumblebees are not deterred by ecologically relevant concentrations of nectar toxins. J Exp Biol. 2014; 217(pt 9): 1620–1625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[65] Tragust S, Mitteregger B, Barone V, et al.: Ants disinfect fungus-exposed brood by oral uptake and spread of their poison. Curr Biol. 2013; 23(1): 76–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[66] Wrangham RW: Relationship of chimpanzee leaf-swallowing to a tapeworm infection. Am J Primatol. 1995; 37(4): 297–303. Publisher Full Text

[67] Wright GA, Baker DD, Palmer MJ, et al.: Caffeine in floral nectar enhances a pollinator’s memory of reward. Science. 2013; 339(6124): 1202–1204. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Bees (Starved)	Colony (Starved)	Treatment (Starved)	Treatnum (Starved)	Survival hours (Starved)	Colony (ad libitum)	Treatment (ad libitum)	Treatnum (ad libitum)	Survival days (ad libitum)
46	1	NN	3	2	1	NN	1	12
44	3	NS	2	3	1	NN	1	13
28	1	NS	2	14	1	NN	1	16
21	3	SS	1	12	1	NN	1	18
13	2	SS	1	19	1	NN	1	19
40	2	NS	2	9	1	NN	1	21
68	3	SS	1	12	1	NN	1	21
71	3	SS	1	13	1	NN	1	21
18	2	SS	1	18	1	NN	1	23
2	1	SS	1	15	1	NN	1	25
51	1	NN	3	18	1	NN	1	26
52	1	NN	3	16	1	NN	1	27
39	2	NS	2	18	1	NN	1	27
62	2	NN	3	29	1	NN	1	26
33	2	NS	2	17	1	NN	1	28
65	3	NN	3	20	2	NN	1	34
20	2	SS	1	20	2	NN	1	17
88	3	NN	3	19	2	NN	1	17
14	2	SS	1	19	2	NN	1	19
4	1	SS	1	24	2	NN	1	21
67	3	NN	3	24	2	NN	1	21
78	3	NS	2	21	2	NN	1	22
6	1	SS	1	22	2	NN	1	23
50	1	NN	3	25	2	NN	1	23
12	2	SS	1	23	2	NN	1	24
41	2	NS	2	23	2	NN	1	24
70	3	SS	1	23	2	NN	1	24
66	3	NN	3	24	2	NN	1	25
29	1	NS	2	24	2	NN	1	29
1	1	SS	1	25	2	NN	1	31
72	3	SS	1	25	3	NN	1	6
23	1	NS	2	26	3	NN	1	14
77	3	NS	2	27	3	NN	1	16
27	1	NS	2	27	3	NN	1	17
42	2	NS	2	28	3	NN	1	19
19	2	SS	1	29	3	NN	1	21
60	2	NN	3	30	3	NN	1	21
24	1	NS	2	30	3	NN	1	22
32	1	NS	2	30	3	NN	1	22
87	3	NN	3	30	3	NN	1	24
47	1	NN	3	31	3	NN	1	25
58	2	NN	3	32	3	NN	1	25
5	1	SS	1	32	3	NN	1	28
30	1	NS	2	33	3	NN	1	29
34	2	NS	2	34	3	NN	1	30
49	1	NN	3	34	1	NS	2	16
56	2	NN	3	35	1	NS	2	17
8	1	SS	1	35	1	NS	2	19
43	3	NS	2	36	1	NS	2	20
11	2	SS	1	36	1	NS	2	20
57	2	NN	3	36	1	NS	2	21
61	2	NN	3	39	1	NS	2	21
17	2	SS	1	39	1	NS	2	22
37	2	NS	2	40	1	NS	2	24
64	2	NN	3	40	1	NS	2	25
3	1	SS	1	40	1	NS	2	25
35	2	NS	2	40	1	NS	2	27
79	3	NS	2	42	1	NS	2	31
55	2	NN	3	42	1	NS	2	28
53	1	NN	3	43	1	NS	2	28
16	2	SS	1	44	2	NS	2	8
45	1	NN	3	44	2	NS	2	11
7	1	SS	1	45	2	NS	2	16
10	1	SS	1	46	2	NS	2	18
54	1	NN	3	46	2	NS	2	18
36	2	NS	2	47	2	NS	2	20
63	2	NN	3	48	2	NS	2	20
26	1	NS	2	49	2	NS	2	23
25	1	NS	2	50	2	NS	2	24
59	2	NN	3	50	2	NS	2	25
69	3	SS	1	50	2	NS	2	27
9	1	SS	1	51	2	NS	2	29
15	2	SS	1	52	2	NS	2	29
31	1	NS	2	52	2	NS	2	31
48	1	NN	3	52	2	NS	2	27
80	3	NS	2	53	3	NS	2	12
22	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	18
38	2	NS	2		3	NS	2	19
73	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	20
74	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	21
75	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	21
76	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
81	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
82	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
83	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	24
84	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	26
85	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	31
86	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	32
89	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	31
90	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	26
					1	SS	3	15
					1	SS	3	3
					1	SS	3	11
					1	SS	3	14
					1	SS	3	14
					1	SS	3	16
					1	SS	3	18
					1	SS	3	18
					1	SS	3	19
					1	SS	3	21
					1	SS	3	22
					1	SS	3	24
					1	SS	3	29
					1	SS	3	27
					1	SS	3	30
					2	SS	3	9
					2	SS	3	15
					2	SS	3	17
					2	SS	3	20
					2	SS	3	20
					2	SS	3	21
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	24
					2	SS	3	24
					2	SS	3	27
					2	SS	3	27
					2	SS	3	28
					2	SS	3	31
					3	SS	3	15
					3	SS	3	19
					3	SS	3	21
					3	SS	3	23
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	25
					3	SS	3	25
					3	SS	3	26
					3	SS	3	28
					3	SS	3	29
					3	SS	3	26
					3	SS	3	26

Colony	Parasites	Nicotine visits/100 visits
1	0	48
1	0	59
1	0	58
1	0	60
1	0	65
1	0	59
1	0	50
1	0	48
1	0	63
1	0	65
1	0	57
1	0	46
1	0	59
1	0	62
2	0	58
2	0	18
2	0	21
2	0	71
2	0	15
2	0	85
2	0	69
2	0	65
2	0	80
2	0	77
2	0	70
2	0	16
2	0	29
2	0	33
3	277	81
3	283	68
3	366	90
3	392	82
3	298	64
3	366	38
3	432	56
3	229	67
3	280	59
3	404	70
3	361	67
3	453	59
3	285	64
3	353	54
3	455	57
3	262	66
4	229	54
4	373	59
4	220	46
4	133	53
4	348	88
4	565	95
4	243	79
4	67	76
4	333	50
4	83	62
4	212	59
4	309	50
4	475	81
4	280	56

Bees (Starved)	Colony (Starved)	Treatment (Starved)	Treatnum (Starved)	Survival hours (Starved)	Colony (ad libitum)	Treatment (ad libitum)	Treatnum (ad libitum)	Survival days (ad libitum)
46	1	NN	3	2	1	NN	1	12
44	3	NS	2	3	1	NN	1	13
28	1	NS	2	14	1	NN	1	16
21	3	SS	1	12	1	NN	1	18
13	2	SS	1	19	1	NN	1	19
40	2	NS	2	9	1	NN	1	21
68	3	SS	1	12	1	NN	1	21
71	3	SS	1	13	1	NN	1	21
18	2	SS	1	18	1	NN	1	23
2	1	SS	1	15	1	NN	1	25
51	1	NN	3	18	1	NN	1	26
52	1	NN	3	16	1	NN	1	27
39	2	NS	2	18	1	NN	1	27
62	2	NN	3	29	1	NN	1	26
33	2	NS	2	17	1	NN	1	28
65	3	NN	3	20	2	NN	1	34
20	2	SS	1	20	2	NN	1	17
88	3	NN	3	19	2	NN	1	17
14	2	SS	1	19	2	NN	1	19
4	1	SS	1	24	2	NN	1	21
67	3	NN	3	24	2	NN	1	21
78	3	NS	2	21	2	NN	1	22
6	1	SS	1	22	2	NN	1	23
50	1	NN	3	25	2	NN	1	23
12	2	SS	1	23	2	NN	1	24
41	2	NS	2	23	2	NN	1	24
70	3	SS	1	23	2	NN	1	24
66	3	NN	3	24	2	NN	1	25
29	1	NS	2	24	2	NN	1	29
1	1	SS	1	25	2	NN	1	31
72	3	SS	1	25	3	NN	1	6
23	1	NS	2	26	3	NN	1	14
77	3	NS	2	27	3	NN	1	16
27	1	NS	2	27	3	NN	1	17
42	2	NS	2	28	3	NN	1	19
19	2	SS	1	29	3	NN	1	21
60	2	NN	3	30	3	NN	1	21
24	1	NS	2	30	3	NN	1	22
32	1	NS	2	30	3	NN	1	22
87	3	NN	3	30	3	NN	1	24
47	1	NN	3	31	3	NN	1	25
58	2	NN	3	32	3	NN	1	25
5	1	SS	1	32	3	NN	1	28
30	1	NS	2	33	3	NN	1	29
34	2	NS	2	34	3	NN	1	30
49	1	NN	3	34	1	NS	2	16
56	2	NN	3	35	1	NS	2	17
8	1	SS	1	35	1	NS	2	19
43	3	NS	2	36	1	NS	2	20
11	2	SS	1	36	1	NS	2	20
57	2	NN	3	36	1	NS	2	21
61	2	NN	3	39	1	NS	2	21
17	2	SS	1	39	1	NS	2	22
37	2	NS	2	40	1	NS	2	24
64	2	NN	3	40	1	NS	2	25
3	1	SS	1	40	1	NS	2	25
35	2	NS	2	40	1	NS	2	27
79	3	NS	2	42	1	NS	2	31
55	2	NN	3	42	1	NS	2	28
53	1	NN	3	43	1	NS	2	28
16	2	SS	1	44	2	NS	2	8
45	1	NN	3	44	2	NS	2	11
7	1	SS	1	45	2	NS	2	16
10	1	SS	1	46	2	NS	2	18
54	1	NN	3	46	2	NS	2	18
36	2	NS	2	47	2	NS	2	20
63	2	NN	3	48	2	NS	2	20
26	1	NS	2	49	2	NS	2	23
25	1	NS	2	50	2	NS	2	24
59	2	NN	3	50	2	NS	2	25
69	3	SS	1	50	2	NS	2	27
9	1	SS	1	51	2	NS	2	29
15	2	SS	1	52	2	NS	2	29
31	1	NS	2	52	2	NS	2	31
48	1	NN	3	52	2	NS	2	27
80	3	NS	2	53	3	NS	2	12
22	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	18
38	2	NS	2		3	NS	2	19
73	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	20
74	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	21
75	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	21
76	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
81	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
82	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
83	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	24
84	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	26
85	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	31
86	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	32
89	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	31
90	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	26
					1	SS	3	15
					1	SS	3	3
					1	SS	3	11
					1	SS	3	14
					1	SS	3	14
					1	SS	3	16
					1	SS	3	18
					1	SS	3	18
					1	SS	3	19
					1	SS	3	21
					1	SS	3	22
					1	SS	3	24
					1	SS	3	29
					1	SS	3	27
					1	SS	3	30
					2	SS	3	9
					2	SS	3	15
					2	SS	3	17
					2	SS	3	20
					2	SS	3	20
					2	SS	3	21
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	24
					2	SS	3	24
					2	SS	3	27
					2	SS	3	27
					2	SS	3	28
					2	SS	3	31
					3	SS	3	15
					3	SS	3	19
					3	SS	3	21
					3	SS	3	23
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	25
					3	SS	3	25
					3	SS	3	26
					3	SS	3	28
					3	SS	3	29
					3	SS	3	26
					3	SS	3	26

Colony	Parasites	Nicotine visits/100 visits
1	0	48
1	0	59
1	0	58
1	0	60
1	0	65
1	0	59
1	0	50
1	0	48
1	0	63
1	0	65
1	0	57
1	0	46
1	0	59
1	0	62
2	0	58
2	0	18
2	0	21
2	0	71
2	0	15
2	0	85
2	0	69
2	0	65
2	0	80
2	0	77
2	0	70
2	0	16
2	0	29
2	0	33
3	277	81
3	283	68
3	366	90
3	392	82
3	298	64
3	366	38
3	432	56
3	229	67
3	280	59
3	404	70
3	361	67
3	453	59
3	285	64
3	353	54
3	455	57
3	262	66
4	229	54
4	373	59
4	220	46
4	133	53
4	348	88
4	565	95
4	243	79
4	67	76
4	333	50
4	83	62
4	212	59
4	309	50
4	475	81
4	280	56

Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Methods

Insects, pathogens and compounds

Infection experiments

Laboratory toxicity bioassays

Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine

Behavioural test

Statistical analysis

Results

Infection experiments

Table 1. “Continuous Exposure” test: results from GLMM analysis of C. bombi population dynamics in bumblebees.

Figure 1. Intensity of C. bombi infections in bumblebees that received either a nicotine diet (Experimental bees, n = 20) or a sucrose only diet (Control bees, n = 20).

Table 2. Delayed Exposure test: results from the GLMM analysis of C. bombi population dynamics in bumblebees.

Figure 2. Intensity of C. bombi infections in bumblebees inoculated with pathogens previously exposed to nicotine for two hours (Experimental bees, n = 20) or to a control sucrose diet (Control bees, n = 20).

Laboratory toxicity bioassays

Figure 3.

Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine

Preference of freely flying bees for nicotine-laced flowers

Figure 4. Percentage of preferred flowers rewording with nicotine-rich artificial nectar by infected bees (n = 31) and healthy bees (n = 28), (t test, P = 0.016).

Discussion

Data availability

Author contributions

Competing interests

Grant information

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Bees (Starved)	Colony (Starved)	Treatment (Starved)	Treatnum (Starved)	Survival hours (Starved)	Colony (ad libitum)	Treatment (ad libitum)	Treatnum (ad libitum)	Survival days (ad libitum)
46	1	NN	3	2	1	NN	1	12
44	3	NS	2	3	1	NN	1	13
28	1	NS	2	14	1	NN	1	16
21	3	SS	1	12	1	NN	1	18
13	2	SS	1	19	1	NN	1	19
40	2	NS	2	9	1	NN	1	21
68	3	SS	1	12	1	NN	1	21
71	3	SS	1	13	1	NN	1	21
18	2	SS	1	18	1	NN	1	23
2	1	SS	1	15	1	NN	1	25
51	1	NN	3	18	1	NN	1	26
52	1	NN	3	16	1	NN	1	27
39	2	NS	2	18	1	NN	1	27
62	2	NN	3	29	1	NN	1	26
33	2	NS	2	17	1	NN	1	28
65	3	NN	3	20	2	NN	1	34
20	2	SS	1	20	2	NN	1	17
88	3	NN	3	19	2	NN	1	17
14	2	SS	1	19	2	NN	1	19
4	1	SS	1	24	2	NN	1	21
67	3	NN	3	24	2	NN	1	21
78	3	NS	2	21	2	NN	1	22
6	1	SS	1	22	2	NN	1	23
50	1	NN	3	25	2	NN	1	23
12	2	SS	1	23	2	NN	1	24
41	2	NS	2	23	2	NN	1	24
70	3	SS	1	23	2	NN	1	24
66	3	NN	3	24	2	NN	1	25
29	1	NS	2	24	2	NN	1	29
1	1	SS	1	25	2	NN	1	31
72	3	SS	1	25	3	NN	1	6
23	1	NS	2	26	3	NN	1	14
77	3	NS	2	27	3	NN	1	16
27	1	NS	2	27	3	NN	1	17
42	2	NS	2	28	3	NN	1	19
19	2	SS	1	29	3	NN	1	21
60	2	NN	3	30	3	NN	1	21
24	1	NS	2	30	3	NN	1	22
32	1	NS	2	30	3	NN	1	22
87	3	NN	3	30	3	NN	1	24
47	1	NN	3	31	3	NN	1	25
58	2	NN	3	32	3	NN	1	25
5	1	SS	1	32	3	NN	1	28
30	1	NS	2	33	3	NN	1	29
34	2	NS	2	34	3	NN	1	30
49	1	NN	3	34	1	NS	2	16
56	2	NN	3	35	1	NS	2	17
8	1	SS	1	35	1	NS	2	19
43	3	NS	2	36	1	NS	2	20
11	2	SS	1	36	1	NS	2	20
57	2	NN	3	36	1	NS	2	21
61	2	NN	3	39	1	NS	2	21
17	2	SS	1	39	1	NS	2	22
37	2	NS	2	40	1	NS	2	24
64	2	NN	3	40	1	NS	2	25
3	1	SS	1	40	1	NS	2	25
35	2	NS	2	40	1	NS	2	27
79	3	NS	2	42	1	NS	2	31
55	2	NN	3	42	1	NS	2	28
53	1	NN	3	43	1	NS	2	28
16	2	SS	1	44	2	NS	2	8
45	1	NN	3	44	2	NS	2	11
7	1	SS	1	45	2	NS	2	16
10	1	SS	1	46	2	NS	2	18
54	1	NN	3	46	2	NS	2	18
36	2	NS	2	47	2	NS	2	20
63	2	NN	3	48	2	NS	2	20
26	1	NS	2	49	2	NS	2	23
25	1	NS	2	50	2	NS	2	24
59	2	NN	3	50	2	NS	2	25
69	3	SS	1	50	2	NS	2	27
9	1	SS	1	51	2	NS	2	29
15	2	SS	1	52	2	NS	2	29
31	1	NS	2	52	2	NS	2	31
48	1	NN	3	52	2	NS	2	27
80	3	NS	2	53	3	NS	2	12
22	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	18
38	2	NS	2		3	NS	2	19
73	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	20
74	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	21
75	3	SS	1		3	NS	2	21
76	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
81	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
82	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	23
83	3	NS	2		3	NS	2	24
84	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	26
85	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	31
86	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	32
89	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	31
90	3	NN	3		3	NS	2	26
					1	SS	3	15
					1	SS	3	3
					1	SS	3	11
					1	SS	3	14
					1	SS	3	14
					1	SS	3	16
					1	SS	3	18
					1	SS	3	18
					1	SS	3	19
					1	SS	3	21
					1	SS	3	22
					1	SS	3	24
					1	SS	3	29
					1	SS	3	27
					1	SS	3	30
					2	SS	3	9
					2	SS	3	15
					2	SS	3	17
					2	SS	3	20
					2	SS	3	20
					2	SS	3	21
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	22
					2	SS	3	24
					2	SS	3	24
					2	SS	3	27
					2	SS	3	27
					2	SS	3	28
					2	SS	3	31
					3	SS	3	15
					3	SS	3	19
					3	SS	3	21
					3	SS	3	23
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	24
					3	SS	3	25
					3	SS	3	25
					3	SS	3	26
					3	SS	3	28
					3	SS	3	29
					3	SS	3	26
					3	SS	3	26

Colony	Parasites	Nicotine visits/100 visits
1	0	48
1	0	59
1	0	58
1	0	60
1	0	65
1	0	59
1	0	50
1	0	48
1	0	63
1	0	65
1	0	57
1	0	46
1	0	59
1	0	62
2	0	58
2	0	18
2	0	21
2	0	71
2	0	15
2	0	85
2	0	69
2	0	65
2	0	80
2	0	77
2	0	70
2	0	16
2	0	29
2	0	33
3	277	81
3	283	68
3	366	90
3	392	82
3	298	64
3	366	38
3	432	56
3	229	67
3	280	59
3	404	70
3	361	67
3	453	59
3	285	64
3	353	54
3	455	57
3	262	66
4	229	54
4	373	59
4	220	46
4	133	53
4	348	88
4	565	95
4	243	79
4	67	76
4	333	50
4	83	62
4	212	59
4	309	50
4	475	81
4	280	56