Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) use social information as an indicator of safety in dangerous environments

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 281, Issue 1785, 2014, Pages

  Dawson, Erika H ^a   Chittka, Lars ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bumblebees; Group formation; Predator avoidance; Social information; Social learning

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATION BEHAVIOR; ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; AVOIDANCE REACTION; BEE; BIOINDICATOR; PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTION; PREDATION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

AGGRESSION; ANIMAL; ANIMAL FOOD; BEETLE; BODY SIZE; FEMALE; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; LARVA; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

AGGRESSION; ANIMAL NUTRITIONAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; ANIMALS; BEETLES; BODY SIZE; ENGLAND; FEMALE; GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT; LARVA; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT;

EID: 84899699789     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.3174     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Zuberbühler K, Noë R, Seyfarth RM. 1997 Diana monkey long-distance calls: messages for conspecifics and predators. Anim. Behav. 53, 589-604. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0334)
2. Zuberbühler K. 2001 Predator-specific alarm calls in Campbell's monkeys, Cercopithecus campbelli. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50, 414-422. (doi:10.1007/ s002650100383)
3. Leavesley AJ, Magrath RD. 2005 Communicating about danger: urgency alarm calling in a bird. Anim. Behav. 70, 365-373. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav. 2004.10.017)
4. Dukas R. 2001 Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees. Ecol. Lett. 4, 327-333. (doi:10. 1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00228.x)
5. Abbott KR. 2006 Bumblebees avoid flowers containing evidence of past predation events. Can. J. Zool. 84, 1240-1247. (doi:10.1139/z06-117)
6. Iglesias TL, McElreath R, Patricelli GL. 2012 Western scrub-jay funerals: cacophonous aggregations in response to dead conspecifics. Anim. Behav. 84, 1103-1111. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.007)
7. Schmidt KA, Lee E, Ostfeld RS, Sieving K. 2008 Eastern chipmunks increase their perception of predation risk in response to titmouse alarm calls. Behav. Ecol. 19, 759-763. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arn034)
8. Templeton CN, Greene E. 2007 Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5479-5482. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0605183104)
9. Côté IM, Jelnikar E. 1999 Predator-induced clumping behaviour in mussels (Mytilus edulis linnaeus). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 235, 201-211. (doi:10.1016/S0022-0981(98)00155-5)
10. Hoare DJ, Couzin ID, Godin JGJ, Krause J. 2004 Contextdependent group size choice in fish. Anim. Behav. 67, 155-164. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.04.004)
11. Noë R, Bshary R. 1997 The formation of red colobus-Diana monkey associations under predation pressure from chimpanzees. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 253-259. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0036)
12. Krause J, Godin JG. 1994 Shoal choice in the banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus, Teleostei, Cyprinodontidae): effects of predation risk, fish size, species composition and size of shoals. Ethology 98, 128-136. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1994.tb01063.x)
13. Vine I. 1971 Risk of visual detection and pursuit by a predator and the selective advantage of flocking behaviour. J. Theor. Biol. 30, 405-422. (doi:10. 1016/0022-5193(71)90061-0)
14. Hamilton WD. 1971 Geometry for the selfish herd. J. Theor. Biol. 31, 295-311. (doi:10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5)
15. Kenward RE. 1978 Hawks and doves: factors affecting success and selection in goshawk attacks on woodpigeons. J. Anim. Ecol. 47, 449-460. (doi:10.2307/3793)
16. Hoogland JL. 1981 The evolution of coloniality in white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dogs (Sciuridae: Cynomys leucurus and C. ludovicianus). Ecology 62, 252-272. (doi:10.2307/1936685)
17. Pays O, Beauchamp G, Carter AJ, Goldizen AW. 2013 Foraging in groups allows collective predator detection in a mammal species without alarm calls. Behav. Ecol. 24, 1229-1236. (doi:10.1093/beheco/art057)
18. Ings TC, Chittka L. 2009 Predator crypsis enhances behaviourally mediated indirect effects on plants by altering bumblebee foraging preferences. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 2031-2036. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1748)
19. Dukas R. 2005 Bumble bee predators reduce pollinator density and plant fitness. Ecology 86, 1401-1406. (doi:10.1890/04-1663)
20. Suttle KB. 2003 Pollinators as mediators of topdown effects on plants. Ecol. Lett. 6, 688-694. (doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00490.x)
21. Dukas R, Morse DH. 2003 Crab spiders affect flower visitation by bees. Oikos 101, 157-163. (doi:10. 1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12143.x)
22. Jones E, Dornhaus A. 2011 Predation risk makes bees reject rewarding flowers and reduce foraging activity. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 1505-1511. (doi:10.1007/s00265-011-1160-z)
23. Reader T, Higginson AD, Barnard CJ, Gilbert FS. 2006 The effects of predation risk from crab spiders on bee foraging behavior. Behav. Ecol. 17, 933-939. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arl027)
24. Goncalves-Souza T, Omena PM, Souza JC, Romero GQ. 2008 Trait-mediated effects on flowers: artificial spiders deceive pollinators and decrease plant fitness. Ecology 89, 2407-2413. (doi:10.1890/07-1881.1)
25. Insausti TC, Casas J. 2008 The functional morphology of color changing in a spider: development of ommochrome pigment granules. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 780-789. (doi:10.1242/jeb. 014043)
26. Chittka L. 2001 Camouflage of predatory crab spiders on flowers and the colour perception of bees (Aranida: Thomisidae/Hymenoptera: Apidae). Entomol. Gen. 25, 181-187. (doi:10.1127/entom. gen/25/2001/181)
27. Morse DH. 1979 Prey capture by the crab spider Misumena calycina (Araneae: Thomisidae). Oecologia 39, 309-319. (doi:10.1007/bf00345442)
28. Morse DH. 1981 Prey capture by the crab spider Misumena vatia (Clerck) (Thomisidae) on three common native flowers. Am. Midl. Nat. 105, 358-367. (doi:10.2307/2424754)
29. Morse DH. 1986 Predatory risk to insects foraging at flowers. Oikos 46, 223-228. (doi:10.2307/3565470)
30. Goodale E, Nieh JC. 2012 Public use of olfactory information associated with predation in two species of social bees. Anim. Behav. 84, 919-924. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.07.016)
31. Llandres AL, Gonzálvez FG, Rodríguez-Gironés MA. 2013 Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked. Anim. Behav. 85, 97-102. (doi:10.1016/j. anbehav.2012.10.012)
32. Nieh JC. 2010 A negative feedback signal that is triggered by peril curbs honey bee recruitment. Curr. Biol. 20, 310-315. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009. 12.060)
33. Ings TC, Chittka L. 2008 Speed-accuracy tradeoffs and false alarms in bee responses to cryptic predators. Curr. Biol. 18, 1520-1524. (doi:10.1016/ j.cub.2008.07.074)
34. Heyes CM. 1994 Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biol. Rev. 69, 207-231. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1994.tb01506.x)
35. Leadbeater E, Chittka L. 2009 Bumble-bees learn the value of social cues through experience. Biol. Lett. 5, 310-312. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0692)
36. Dawson EH, Chittka L. 2012 Conspecific and heterospecific information use in bumblebees. PLoS ONE 7, e31444. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0031444)
37. Dawson EH, Avargues-Weber A, Chittka L, Leadbeater E. 2013 Learning by observation emerges from simple associations in an insect model. Curr. Biol. 23, 727-730. (doi:10.1016/j.cub. 2013.03.035)
38. Laland K. 2004 Social learning strategies. Learn. Behav. 32, 4-14. (doi:10.3758/bf03196002)
39. Toelch U, van Delft MJ, Bruce MJ, Donders R, Meeus MTH, Reader SM. 2009 Decreased environmental variability induces a bias for social information use in humans. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30, 32-40. (doi:10. 1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.003)
40. Webster MM, Laland KN. 2008 Social learning strategies and predation risk: minnows copy only when using private information would be costly. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 2869-2876. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2008.0817)
41. Kawaguchi LG, Ohashi K, Toquenaga Y. 2007 Contrasting responses of bumble bees to feeding conspecifics on their familiar and unfamiliar flowers. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 2661-2667. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2007.0860)
42. Leadbeater E, Chittka L. 2005 A new mode of information transfer in foraging bumblebees? Curr. Biol. 15, R447-R448. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005. 06.011)
43. Louda S. 1982 Inflorescence spiders: a cost/benefit analysis for the host plant, Haplopappus venetus Blake (Asteraceae). Oecologia 55, 185-191. (doi:10. 1007/bf00384486)
44. Rendell L et al. 2010 Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science 328, 208-213. (doi:10.1126/science. 1184719)