Bumble bees and honey bees are of vital importance for tomato pollination, although honey bees are less attracted to tomato flowers than bumble bees. Little is known about how tomato flower volatile compounds influence the foraging behaviors of honey bees and bumble bees. In this study, compounds of tomato flower volatiles were detected by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Electroantennography (EAG) and a dynamic two-choice olfactometer were used, respectively, to compare the differences of antennal and behavioral responses between Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris towards selected volatile compounds. A total of 46 compounds were detected from the tomato flower volatiles. Of the 16 compounds tested, A. mellifera showed strong antennal responses to 3 compounds (1-nonanal, (+)-dihydrocarvone, and toluene) when compared with a mineral oil control, and B. terrestris showed 7 pronounced EAG responses (1,3-xylene, (+)-dihydrocarvone, toluene, piperitone, eucarvone, 1-nonanal, and β-ocimene). Additionally, 1-nonanal and (+)-dihydrocarvone elicited significant avoidance behavior of A. mellifera, but not of B. terrestris. In conclusion, bumble bees are more sensitive to the compounds of tomato flower volatiles compared to honey bees, and honey bees showed aversion to some compounds of tomato flower volatiles. The findings indicated that compounds of flower volatiles significantly influenced bee foraging preference for tomato.

As important pollinators, honeybees and bumblebees present a pollination behavior that is influenced by flower volatiles through the olfactory system. In this study, volatile compounds from melon flowers were isolated and identified by headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and their effects on Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris were investigated by electroantennogram (EAG) and behavior tests (Y-tube olfactometer). The results showed that 77 volatile compounds were detected in melon flowers, among which the relative content of aldehydes was the highest (61.34%; 82.09%). A. mellifera showed a strong EAG response to e-2-hexenal, e-2-octenal, and 1-nonanal. B. terrestris showed a strong EAG response to e-2-hexenal, e-2-octenal, 2,5-dimethyl-benzaldehyde, benzaldehyde and benzenepropanal. In behavior tests, the volatiles with the highest attractive rate to A. mellifera were e-2-hexenal (200 μg/μL, 33.33%) and e-2-octenal (300 μg/μL, 33.33%), and those to B. terrestris were e-2-hexenal (10 μg/μL, 53.33%) and 2,5-dimethyl-benzaldehyde (100 μg/μL, 43.33%). E-2-hexenal and e-2-octenal were more attractive to A. mellifera than B. terrestris, respectively (10 μg/μL, 10 μg/μL, 200 μg/μL). In conclusion, the volatiles of melon flowers in facilities have certain effects on the electrophysiology and behavior of bees, which is expected to provide theoretical and technical support for the pollination of A. mellifera and B. terrestris in facilities.

The interactions between plants and pollinators are complex. Flower volatiles as special olfactory cues could influence the foraging choices of pollinators. Here, we conducted bioassays to evaluate the role of flower volatiles on the attraction of honey bees (native Apis cerana and exotic Apis mellifera) to pears (native Pyrus bretschneideri and exotic Pyrus communis). Chemical and electrophysiological approaches were used to determine flower volatiles and evaluate the antennal responses of honey bees to volatiles from pear flowers. Bioassays demonstrated that flower volatiles were crucial for the attraction of honey bees to pear flowers; honey bees preferred to forage on P. communis flowers (p > 0.05), with approximately 64.37 ± 0.02% (A. mellifera) and 62.10 ± 0.02% (A. cerana) foraging on P. communis. Flowers of P. communis and P. bretschneideri yielded 27 and 31 compounds, respectively, with 17 of them being common. Honey bee antennae responded to 16 chemicals, including 5 contained in both pear species: 1-nonanol, linalool, methyl 2-hydroxy-3-methylpentanoate, methyl L-isoleucinate, and α-farnesene. In addition, there were 8 electrophysiologically active compounds in P. bretschneideri: methyl L-valine ester, benzaldehyde, 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, isophorone, 2-methyl octane, longicyclene, longifolene, and caryophyllene; and 3 electrophysiologically active compounds in P. communis: β-ocimene, 4-oxoisophorone and lilac alcohol D. In conclusion, our study demonstrated the significant impact of pear flower volatiles on honey bee foraging choices. This knowledge provides a basis for the selection of honey bees for pear pollination and lays a foundation for further study of the chemical communication of pear attractiveness to honey bees.

With the availability of various plants in bloom simultaneously, honey bees prefer to collect some pollen types over others. To better understand pollen’s role as a reward for workers, we compared the digestibility and nutritional value of two pollen diets, namely, pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.) and apricot (Armeniaca sibirica L.). We investigated the visits, pollen consumption, and pollen extraction efficiency of caged Apis mellifera workers. Newly emerged workers were reared, and the effects of two pollen diets on their physiological status (the development of hypopharyngeal glands and ovaries) were compared. The choice-test experiments indicated a significant preference of A. mellifera workers for apricot pollen diets over pear pollen diets (number of bees landing, 29.5 ± 8.11 and 9.25 ± 5.10, p < 0.001 and pollen consumption, 0.052 ± 0.026 g/day and 0.033 ± 0.013 g/day, p < 0.05). Both pollen diets had comparable extraction efficiencies (67.63% for pear pollen and 67.73% for apricot pollen). Caged workers fed different pollen diets also exhibited similar ovarian development (p > 0.05). However, workers fed apricot pollen had significantly larger hypopharyngeal glands than those fed pear pollen (p < 0.001). Our results indicated that the benefits conferred to honey bees by different pollen diets may influence their foraging preference.

Strawberries are popular fruits around the world, and their yield and fruit quality rely on pollination by honey bees and bumblebee colonies. Both bee species have their own advantages in strawberry pollination. This study investigates the characteristic of strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa ‘Red Face’) flower volatiles and their effects on bee pollinators by (1) detecting the volatile compounds of strawberry flowers by polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) combined gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), (2) determining whether Bombus terrestris or Apis mellifera showed antennae responses to certain compounds of strawberry flower volatiles by an electroantennography test (EAG), and (3) testing whether these compounds could elicit a corresponding behavioral response in bees. The results showed that (1) there were 38 chemical compounds in ‘Red Face’ volatiles with 7 types, most of which were known to be generally emitted by flowers but also have some compounds that have not been reported in strawberry flowers; (2) B. terrestris and A. mellifera had strong EAG responses to several compounds, respectively, especially to ethyl benzoate, (Z)-3-hexenyl propionate, (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, benzeneacetaldehyde and melonal; and (3) both bee species showed significant avoidance behaviors to four tested compounds, especially the B. terrestris. Flower volatiles of strawberry ‘Red face’ were different from other strawberry varieties that have been reported; some of these electrophysiologically active compounds could cause antennal potential responses in bees, as well as behavioral responses. Our study supports the idea that strawberry flower volatiles are one of the factors influencing bee foraging decisions and provides a reference for formulating more reasonable bee pollination to improve strawberry fruit quality.

High temperature affects behavior, physiology, survival, and the expression of related genes in adult honeybees. Apis mellifera is the common pollinator in greenhouse and is susceptible to high temperature stress. To further explore the molecular basis related to heat stress, we compared the transcriptome profiles of adult worker bees at 25 and 45°C, and detected the expression patterns of some differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in different tissues by q RT-PCR. Differential expression analysis showed that 277 DEGs were identified, including 167 genes upregulated and 110 genes downregulated after heat stress exposure in adult worker bees. In GO enrichment analysis, DEGs were mostly enriched for protein folding, unfold protein binding, and heme binding terms. Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum and longevity regulating pathway-multiple species were significantly enriched in KEGG. The expression levels of 16 DEGs were consistent with the transcriptome results. The expression patterns of 9 DEGs in different tissues revealed high levels in the thorax, which was supposed that the thorax may be the most important part in the response to heat stress. This study provided valuable data for exploring the function of heat resistance-related genes.