The effects of predation risk from crab spiders on bee foraging behavior

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 933-939

  Reader, Tom ^a   Higginson, Andrew D ^a   Barnard, Christopher J ^a   Gilbert, Francis S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b SUEZ CANAL UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

Author keywords

Apis mellifera; Eucera notata; Flower visitation; Inflorescence; Pollination; Top down effects

Indexed keywords

BEE; ENVIRONMENTAL CUE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FLOWER VISITING; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; NECTAR; POLLEN; POLLINATOR; PREDATION RISK; SPIDER;

EURASIA; EUROPE; PORTUGAL; SOUTHERN EUROPE;

APIDAE; APIS MELLIFERA; APOIDEA; ARANEAE; DECAPODA (CRUSTACEA); HYMENOPTERA; THOMISIDAE;

EID: 33749508654     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arl027     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Cameron SA. 1981. Chemical signals in bumble bee foraging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:257-60.
2. Craig CL. 1994a. Limits to learning: effects of predator pattern and colour on perception and avoidance-learning by prey. Anim Behav 47:1087-99.
3. Craig CL. 1994b. Predator foraging behavior in response to perception and learning by its prey: interactions between orb-spinning spiders and stingless bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:45-52.
4. Crawley JM. 1992. Natural enemies: the population biology of predators, parasites and diseases. London: Blackwell Scientific.
5. Crawley MJ. 2002. Statistical computing. An introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
6. De Moraes CM, Lewis WJ, Pare PW, Alborn HT, Tumlinson JH. 1998. Herbivore-infested plants selectively attract parasitoids. Nature 393:570-3.
7. Duffield GE, Gibson RC, Gilhooly PM, Hesse AJ, Inkley CR, Gilbert FS, Barnard CJ. 1993. Choice of flowers by foraging honey bees (Apis mellifera): possible morphological cues. Ecol Entomol 18: 191-7.
8. Dukas R. 2001a. Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees. Ecol Lett 4:327-33.
9. Dukas R. 2001b. Effects of predation risk on pollinators and plants. In: Chittka L, Thompson JD, editors. Cognitive ecology of pollination. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p 214-36.
10. Dukas R. 2005. Bumble bee predators reduce pollinator density and plant fitness. Ecology 86:1401-6.
11. Dukas R, Morse DH. 2003. Crab spiders affect flower visitation by bees. Oikos 101:157-63.
12. Dukas R, Morse DH. 2005. Crab spiders show mixed effects on flower-visiting bees and no effect on plant fitness components. Écoscience 12:244-7.
13. Dukas R, Morse DH, Myles S. 2005. Experience levels of individuals in natural bee populations and their ecological implications. Can J Zool 83:492-7.
14. Gonzalez A, Rowe CL, Weeks PJ, Whittle D, Gilbert FS, Barnard CJ. 1995. Flower choice by honey bees (Apis mellifera L.): sex-phase of flowers and preferences among nectar and pollen foragers. Oecologia 101:258-64.
15. Halaj J, Wise DH. 2001. Terrestrial trophic cascades: how much do they trickle? Am Nat 157:262-81.
16. Heiling AM, Chittka L, Cheng K, Herberstein ME. 2005. Colouration in crab spiders: substrate choice and prey attraction. J Exp Biol 208:1785-92.
17. Heiling AM, Herberstein ME. 2004. Predator-prey coevolution: Australian native bees avoid their spider predators. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:S196-8.
18. Heiling AM, Herberstein ME, Chittka L. 2003. Crab-spiders manipulate flower signals. Nature 421:334.
19. Higginson AD. 2005. Effects of wing damage on the behaviour of the honeybee Apis mellifera [PhD dissertation]. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.
20. Higginson AD, Barnard CJ. 2004. Accumulating wing damage affects foraging decisions in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Ecol Entomol 29:52-9.
21. Higginson AD, Gilbert F. 2004. Paying for nectar with wingbeats: a new model of honeybee foraging. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271: 2585-603.
22. Lima SL. 1998a. Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. Bioscience 48:25-35.
23. Lima SL. 1998b. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioural, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Study Behav 27:215-90.
24. Lind J, Cresswell W. 2005. Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. Behav Ecol 16:945-56.
25. Morse DH. 1986. Predatory risk to insects foraging at flowers. Oikos 46:223-8.
26. Muñoz AA, Arroyo ATK. 2004. Negative impacts of a vertebrate predator on insect pollinator visitation and seed output in Chuquiraga oppositifolia, a high Andean shrub. Oecologia 138:66-73.
27. Ode PJ. 2006. Plant chemistry and natural enemy fitness: effects on herbivore and natural enemy interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 51:163-85.
28. Pollard SD. 1989. Constraints affecting partial prey consumption by a crab spider, Diaea sp. Indet. (Araneae: Thomisidae). Oecologia 81:392-6.
29. Pyke GH. 1979. Optimal foraging in bumblebees: rules of movement between flowers within inflorescences. Anim Behav 27:1167-81.
30. Reader T, MacLeod I, Elliott PT, Robinson OJ, Manica A. 2005. Interorder interactions between flower-visiting insects: foraging bees avoid flowers previously visited by hoverflies. J Insect Behav 18:51-7.
31. Roberts MJ. 1995. Spiders of Britain and Northern Europe. London: Harper Collins.
32. Robertson IC, Maguire DK. 2005. Crab spiders deter insect visitations to slickspot peppergrass flowers. Oikos 109:577-82.
33. Schmalhofer VR. 2001. Tritrophic interactions in a pollination system: impacts of species composition and size of flower patches on the hunting success of a flower-dwelling spider. Oecologia 129: 292-303.
34. Schmid-Hempel P. 1991. The ergonomics of worker behavior in social Hymenoptera. Adv Study Behav 20:87-134.
35. Schmitz OJ, Hamback PA, Beckerman AP. 2000. Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155:141-53.
36. Stout JC, Goulson D. 2001. The use of conspecific and interspecific scent marks by foraging bumblebees and honey bees. Anim Behav 62:183-9.
37. Suttle KB. 2003. Predators as mediators of top-down effects on plants. Ecol Lett 6:688-94.
38. The R Core Development Team. 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical compating. Vienna, Austria. Available from: http://www.R-project. org. Accessed 28 July 2006.
39. Théry M, Casas J. 2002. Predator and prey views of spider camouflage. Nature 415:133.
40. Williams CS. 1998. The identity of the previous visitor influences flower rejection by nectar-collecting bees. Anim Behav 56: 673-81.