| Title: | Microbial Co-Occurrence in Floral Nectar Affects Metabolites and Attractiveness to a Generalist Pollinator |
| Author(s): | Rering CC; Vannette RL; Schaeffer RN; Beck JJ; |
| Address: | "Chemistry Research Unit, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA. caitlin.rering@usda.gov. Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322, USA. Chemistry Research Unit, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA" |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10886-020-01169-3 |
| ISSN/ISBN: | 1573-1561 (Electronic) 0098-0331 (Linking) |
| Abstract: | "Microbial metabolism can shape cues important for animal attraction in service-resource mutualisms. Resources are frequently colonized by microbial communities, but experimental assessment of animal-microbial interactions often focus on microbial monocultures. Such an approach likely fails to predict effects of microbial assemblages, as microbe-microbe interactions may affect in a non-additive manner microbial metabolism and resulting chemosensory cues. Here, we compared effects of microbial mono- and cocultures on growth of constituent microbes, volatile metabolite production, sugar catabolism, and effects on pollinator foraging across two nectar environments that differed in sugar concentration. Growth in co-culture decreased the abundance of the yeast Metschnikowia reukaufii, but not the bacterium Asaia astilbes. Volatile emissions differed significantly between microbial treatments and with nectar concentration, while sugar concentration was relatively similar among mono- and cocultures. Coculture volatile emission closely resembled an additive combination of monoculture volatiles. Despite differences in microbial growth and chemosensory cues, honey bee feeding did not differ between microbial monocultures and assemblages. Taken together, our results suggest that in some cases, chemical and ecological effects of microbial assemblages are largely predictable from those of component species, but caution that more work is necessary to predict under what circumstances non-additive effects are important" |
| Keywords: | Acetobacteraceae/*metabolism Animals Bees/*physiology Coculture Techniques Flowers Metschnikowia/*metabolism Plant Nectar/*chemistry *Pollination Volatile Organic Compounds/*metabolism Apis mellifera Gustation Mvoc Nectar microbes Olfaction Phytobiome Pol; |
| Notes: | "MedlineRering, Caitlin C Vannette, Rachel L Schaeffer, Robert N Beck, John J eng 2017-67012-26104/National Institute of Food and Agriculture/ 2020/04/05 J Chem Ecol. 2020 Aug; 46(8):659-667. doi: 10.1007/s10886-020-01169-3. Epub 2020 Apr 3" |
