http://precedings.nature.com/tags/insects Recently posted documents tagged with 'insects' Nature Publishing Group en Nature Precedings http://precedings.nature.com/images/header_logo.gif http://precedings.nature.com http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2009.2591.2 Social insect colonies usually live in nests, which are often invaded by parasitic species. Workers from these colonies use different defence strategies to combat invaders. Nevertheless, some parasitic species are able to bypass primary colony defences due to their morphology and behaviour. In particular, some beetle nest invaders cannot be killed or removed by workers of social bees, thus creating the need for alternative social defence strategies to ensure colony survival. Here we show, using Diagnostic Radioentomology, that stingless bee workers Trigona carbonaria, immediately mummify invading destructive nest parasites Aethina tumida alive, with a mixture of resin, wax and mud, thereby preventing severe damage to the colony. In sharp contrast to the responses of honeybee and bumblebee colonies, the rapid live mummification strategy of T. carbonaria effectively prevents beetle parasite advancements and removes their ability to reproduce. The convergent evolution of live mummification by stingless bees and social encapsulation by honeybees suggests that colonies of social bees generally rely on, secondary defence mechanisms when harmful nest intruders cannot be killed or ejected easily. This process is analogous to immune responses in animals. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2009.2591.2 Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:25:23 UTC The Modified Pharaoh Approach: Stingless bees mummify beetle parasites alive doi:10.1038/npre.2009.2591.2 2009-04-06 Mark K. Greco Nature Precedings 2009-04-06T10:25:23Z Manuscript Biotechnology Ecology Earth & Environment http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2591/version/1 Social insect colonies usually live in nests, which are often invaded by parasitic species1. Workers from these colonies use different defence strategies to combat invaders1. Nevertheless, some parasitic species are able to bypass primary colony defences due to their morphology and behaviour1-3. In particular, some beetle nest invaders cannot be killed or removed by workers of social bees2-5, thus creating the need for alternative social defence strategies to ensure colony survival. Here we show, using Diagnostic Radioentomology6, that stingless bee workers Trigona carbonaria, immediately mummify invading destructive nest parasites Aethina tumida alive, with a mixture of resin, wax and mud, thereby preventing severe damage to the colony. In sharp contrast to the responses of honeybee7 and bumblebee colonies8, the rapid live mummification strategy of T. carbonaria effectively prevents beetle parasite advancements and removes their ability to reproduce. The convergent evolution of live mummification by stingless bees and social encapsulation by honeybees3 suggests that colonies of social bees generally rely on, secondary defence mechanisms when harmful nest intruders cannot be killed or ejected easily. This process is analogous to immune responses in animals. http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2591/version/1 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:15:28 UTC The Modified Pharaoh Approach: Stingless bees mummify beetle parasites alive hdl:10101/npre.2008.2591.1 2008-12-02 Mark K. Greco Nature Precedings 2008-12-02T22:15:28Z Manuscript Biotechnology Ecology Earth & Environment http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1258/version/1 Many palatable insects, for example hoverflies, deter predators by mimicking well-defended insects such as wasps. However, for human observers, these flies often seem to be little better than caricatures of wasps – their visual appearance and behaviour are easily distinguishable. This imperfect mimicry baffles evolutionary biologists, because one might expect natural selection to do a more thorough job. Here we discuss two types of cognitive processes that might explain why mimics distinguishable mimics might enjoy increased protection from predation. Speed accuracy tradeoffs in predator decision making might give imperfect mimics sufficient time to escape, and predators under time constraint might avoid time-consuming discriminations between well-defended models and inaccurate edible mimics, and instead adopt a “safety first” policy of avoiding insects with similar appearance. Categorization of prey types by predators could mean that wholly dissimilar mimics may be protected, provided they share some common property with noxious prey. http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1258/version/1 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:39:34 UTC Cognitive dimensions of predator responses to imperfect mimicry? hdl:10101/npre.2007.1258.1 2007-10-26 Lars Chittka Nature Precedings 2007-10-26T14:39:34Z Manuscript Ecology Neuroscience http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/