It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Heavy metal toxicity is an ecological concern in regions affected by processes like mining, industry, and agriculture. At sufficiently high concentrations, heavy metals are lethal to honey bees, but little is known about how sublethal doses affect honey bees or whether they will consume contaminated food. We investigated whether honey bees reject sucrose solutions contaminated with three heavy metals – cadmium, copper, and lead – as a measure of their ability to detect the metals, and whether ingesting these metals altered the bees’ sucrose sensitivity. The metals elicited three different response profiles in honey bees. Cadmium was not rejected in any of the assays, and ingesting cadmium did not alter sucrose sensitivity. Copper was rejected following antennal stimulation, but was readily consumed following proboscis stimulation. Ingestion of copper did not alter sucrose sensitivity. Lead appeared to be palatable at some concentrations and altered the bees’ sensitivity to and/or valuation of sucrose following antennal stimulation or ingestion of the metal. These differences likely represent unique mechanisms for detecting each metal and the pathology of toxicity. The bees’ ability to detect and consume these toxic metals highlights the risk of exposure to these elements for bees living in or near contaminated environments.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Arizona State University, School of Life Sciences, Tempe, USA (GRID:grid.215654.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2151 2636); Union College, Division of Science and Mathematics, Lincoln, USA (GRID:grid.469239.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8454)
2 Arizona State University, School of Life Sciences, Tempe, USA (GRID:grid.215654.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2151 2636)
3 University of California – Riverside, Department of Entomology, Riverside, USA (GRID:grid.266097.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2222 1582)
4 Arizona State University, School of Life Sciences, Tempe, USA (GRID:grid.215654.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2151 2636); Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Aas, Norway (GRID:grid.19477.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 0607 975X)