Optimal foraging when predation risk increases with patch resources: An analysis of pollinators and ambush predators

Oikos

Volumn 119, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 835-840

  Jones, Emily I ^a,b  

^a The University of Arizona   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FORAGING BEHAVIOR; PATCHINESS; PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTION; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; PREDATION RISK; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; TOP-DOWN APPROACH;

EID: 77953085109     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17841.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abbott K R. Bumblebees avoid flowers containing evidence of past predation events. Can. J. Zool.-Rev. Can. Zool. 2006, 84:1240-1247.
2. Abbott K R, Dukas R. Honeybees consider flower danger in their waggle dance. Anim. Behav. 2009, in press
3. Andersson S. Foraging responses in the butterflies Inachis io, Aglais urticae (Nymphalidae), and Gonepteryx rhamni (Pieridae) to floral scents. Chemoecology 2003, 13:1-11.
4. Armitage K B. Notes on the biology of Philanthus bicinctus (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 1965, 38:463-470.
5. Ashman T L, Stanton M. Seasonal variation in pollination dynamics of sexually dimorphic Sidalcea oregana ssp. spicata (Malvaceae). Ecology 1991, 72:993-1003.
6. Baude M. Inadvertent social information in foraging bumblebees: effects of flower distribution and implications for pollination. Anim. Behav. 2008, 76:1863-1873.
7. Brown J S, Kotler B P. Foraging and the ecology of fear. Foraging: behavior and ecology 2007, 437-480. Stephens D W, In:, (eds),, Univ. of Chicago Press, pp.
8. Cartar R V. Colony energy requirements affect response to predation risk in foraging bumble bees. Ethology 1991, 87:90-96.
9. Chien S A, Morse D H. The roles of prey and flower quality in the choice of hunting sites by adult male crab spiders Misumena vatia (Araneae, Thomisidae). J. Arachnol. 1998, 26:238-243.
10. Chittka L. Camouflage of predatory crab spiders on flowers and the colour perception of bees (Aranida: Thomisidae/Hymenoptera: Apidae). Entomol. Gen. 2001, 25:181-187.
11. Clark C W, Dukas R. Balancing foraging and anti-predator demands: an advantage of sociality. Am. Nat. 1994, 144:542-548.
12. Cohen D, Shmida A. The evolution of flower display and reward. Evol. Biol. 1993, 27:197-243.
13. Dukas R. Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees. Ecol. Lett. 2001, 4:327-333.
14. Dukas R, Morse D H. Crab spiders affect flower visitation by bees. Oikos 2003, 101:157-163.
15. Dukas R, Morse D H. Crab spiders show mixed effects on flower-visiting bees and no effect on plant fitness components. Ecoscience 2005, 12:244-247.
16. Dukas R. Experience levels of individuals in natural bee populations and their ecological implications. Can. J. Zool.-Rev. Can. Zool. 2005, 83:492-497.
17. Gomez J M. Natural selection on Erysimum mediohispanicum flower shape: insights into the evolution of zygomorphy. Am. Nat. 2006, 168:531-545.
18. Greco C E, Kevan P G. Contrasting patch choosing by anthophilous ambush predators: vegetation and floral cues for decisions by a crab spider (Misumena vatia) and males and females of an ambush bug (Phymata americana). Can. J. Zool.-Rev. Can. Zool. 1994, 72:1583-1588.
19. Greco C F. Patch choice in ambush predators: plant height selection by Misumena vatia (Araneae, Thomisidae) and Phymata americana (Heteroptera, Phymatidae). Ecoscience 1995, 2:203-205.
20. Heiling A M, Herberstein M E. Floral quality signals lure pollinators and their predators. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2004a, 41:421-428.
21. Heiling A M, Herberstein M E. Predator-prey coevolution: Australian native bees avoid their spider predators. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2004b, 271:S196-S198.
22. Heiling A M. Exploitation of floral signals by crab spiders (Thomisus spectabilis, Thomisidae). Behav. Ecol. 2004, 15:321-326.
23. Heinrich B. Energetics of temperature regulation and foraging in a bumblebee, Bombus terricola Kirby. J. Compar. Physiol. 1972, 77:49-64.
24. Higginson A D. Morphological correlates of nectar production used by honeybees. Ecol. Entomol. 2006, 31:269-276.
25. Hugie D M, Dill L M. Fish and game: a game-theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J. Fish Biol. 1994, 45:151-169.
26. Ings T C, Chittka L. Speed-accuracy tradeoffs and false alarms in bee responses to cryptic predators. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18:1-5.
27. Ings T C, Chittka L. Predator crypsis enhances behaviourally mediated indirect effects on plants by altering bumblebee foraging preferences. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2009, 276:2031-2036.
28. Louda S M. Inflorescence spiders: a cost/benefit analysis for the host plant, Haplopappus venetus Blake (Asteraceae). Oecologia 1982, 55:185-191.
29. Medel R. Pollinator-mediated selection on the nectar guide phenotype in the Andean monkey flower, Mimulus luteus. Ecology 2003, 84:1721-1732.
30. Menzel R. Learning in honeybees in an ecological and behavioral context. Experimental behavioral ecology 1985, 55-74. Holldobler BLindauer M. In:, Fischer, pp.
31. Møller A P. Bumblebee preference for symmetrical flowers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92:2288-2292.
32. Morse D H. Prey capture by the crab spider Misumena calycina (Araneae, Thomisidae). Oecologia 1979, 39:309-319.
33. Morse D H. Cues associated with patch-choice decisions by foraging crab spiders Misumena vatia. Behaviour 1988, 107:297-313.
34. Morse D H. Predator upon a flower: life history and fitness in a crab spider 2007, Harvard Univ. Press
35. Morse D H, Fritz R S. Experimental and observational studies of patch choice at different scales by the crab spider Misumena vatia. Ecology 1982, 63:172-182.
36. Morse D H, Stephens E G. The consequences of adult foraging success on the components of lifetime fitness in a semelparous, sit and wait predator. Evol. Ecol. 1996, 10:361-373.
37. Orrock J L. Consumptive and nonconsumptive effects of predators on metacommunities of competing prey. Ecology 2008, 89:2426-2435.
38. Peckarsky B L. Revisiting the classics: considering nonconsumptive effects in textbook examples of predator-prey interactions. Ecology 2008, 89:2416-2425.
39. Reader T. The effects of predation risk from crab spiders on bee foraging behavior. Behav. Ecol. 2006, 17:933-939.
40. Robertson I C, Maguire D K. Crab spiders deter insect visitations to slickspot peppergrass flowers. Oikos 2005, 109:577-582.
41. Romero G Q, Vasconcellos-Neto J. Beneficial effects of flower-dwelling predators on their host plant. Ecology 2004, 85:446-457.
42. Sargent R D, Ackerly D D. Plant-pollinator interactions and the assembly of plant communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23:123-130.
43. Schmalhofer V R. 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 2001, 129:292-303.
44. Schmitz O J. From individuals to ecosystem function: toward an integration of evolutionary and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 2008, 89:2436-2445.
45. Shykoff J A, Bucheli E. Pollinator visitation patterns, floral rewards and the probability of transmission of Microbotryum violaceum, a venereal disease of plants. J. Ecol. 1995, 83:189-198.
46. Sih A. Game theory and predator-prey response races. Game theory and animal behavior 1998, 221-238. Dugatkin L AReeve H K. In:, (eds),, Oxford Univ. Press, pp.
47. Suttle K B. Pollinators as mediators of top-down effects on plants. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6:688-694.
48. Théry M, Casas J. Predator and prey views of spider camouflage: both hunter and hunted fail to notice crab-spiders blending with coloured petals. Nature 2002, 415:133-133.
49. Wignall A E. Flower symmetry preferences in honeybees and their crab spider predators. Ethology 2006, 112:510-518.