The impacts of predators on bee foraging behavior are varied, but have been suggested to depend on both the type of predator (namely their hunting strategy) and also risk assessment by the prey (i.e., ability to perceive predators and learn to avoid them). However, nearly all studies have explored these impacts using social bees, despite the fact that solitary bees are extremely diverse, often specialized in their floral interactions, and may exhibit different behaviors in response to flower-occupying predators. In this study, we examined foraging behaviors of wild solitary long-horned bees (Melissodes spp.) in response to a cryptic predator, the ambush bug (Phymata americana) on the bees’ primary floral host, the prairie sunflower (Helianthus petiolaris). We found sex-specific differences in foraging behaviors of bees, but little evidence that ambush bugs affected either pre-landing or post-landing foraging behaviors. Male bees visited flowers three times more often than females but female bees were five times more likely to land than males. Ambush bugs did not reduce visitation in either sex. Spectral analysis through a bee vision model indicated that ambush bug dorsal coloration was indistinguishable from the disc flowers of sunflowers, suggesting that ambush bugs are indeed cryptic and likely rarely detected by solitary bees. We discuss the implications of these findings for the perceived risk of predation in solitary bees and compare them to other studies of social bees.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank T. Bildahl, T. Lemeuix, J. Harvey, A. Dunbar-Wallis, and S. Tittes for help with the experiments and the Animal Behavior Reading Group at the University of Colorado Boulder, the Plant Insect Group of Washington D.C., and the Bowers laboratory at the University of Colorado for comments on previous versions of this manuscript. This research was supported by a grant from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado and a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture (NIFA # 2012-04195).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Chittka L (1992) The color hexagon - a chromaticity diagram based on photoreceptor excitations as a generalized representation of color opponency. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 170:533–543Google Scholar
Dawson EH, Chittka L (2014) Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) use social information as an indicator of safety in dangerous environments. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 281:20133174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dukas R (2001) Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees. Ecol Lett 4:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott NB, Elliott LM (1994) Recognition and avoidance of the predator Phymata americana Melin on Solidago odora Ait by late-season floral visitors. Am Midl Nat 131:378–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco CE, Kevan PG (1994) 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 72:1583–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiling AM, Cheng K, Herberstein ME (2004) Exploitation of floral signals by crab spiders (Thomisus spectabilis, Thomisidae). Behav Ecol 15:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser CB (1947) Hybridization between the sunflower species Helianthus annuus and H. petiolaris. Evolution 1:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd PD, Laberge WE, Linsley EG (1980) Prinicipal sunflower bees of North America with emphasis on the southwestern United States (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Smithson Contrib Zool (310):1–158Google Scholar
Ings TC, Chittka L (2008) Speed-accuracy tradeoffs and false alarms in bee responses to cryptic predators. Curr Biol 18:1520–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ings TC, Chittka L (2009) Predator crypsis enhances behaviourally mediated indirect effects on plants by altering bumblebee foraging preferences. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:2031–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ings TC, Wang MY, Chittka L (2012) Colour-independent shape recognition of cryptic predators by bumblebees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones EI (2010) Optimal foraging when predation risk increases with patch resources: an analysis of pollinators and ambush predators. Oikos 119:835–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kacelnik A, El Mouden C (2013) Triumphs and trials of the risk paradigm. Anim Behav 86:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBerge WE (1961) A revision of the bees of the genus Melissodes in north and Central America. Part III (Hymenoptera, Apidae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin 42Google Scholar
Maia R, Eliason CM, Bitton PP, Doucet SM, Shakey MD (2013) Pavo: an R package for the analysis, visualization and organization of spectral data. Methods Ecol Evol 4:609–613Google Scholar
Mason LG (1977) Prey preferences and ecological sexual dimorphism in Phymata americana Melin. Am Midl Nat 97:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ne'eman G, Shavit O, Shaltiel L, Shmida A (2006) Foraging by male and female solitary bees with implications for pollination. J Insect Behav 19:383–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira R, Pereira CR, Pimentel ALAFD, Schlindwein C (2016) The consequences of predation risk on the male territorial behavior in a solitary bee. Ethology 122:632–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker FD, Tepedino VJ, Bohart GE (1981) Notes on the biology of a common sunflower bee, Melissodes (Eumelissodes) agilis Cresson. J N Y Entomol Soc 89:43–52Google Scholar
R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Reader T, Higginson AD, Barnard CJ, Gilbert FS (2006) The effects of predation risk from crab spiders on bee foraging behavior. Behav Ecol 17:933–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Girones MA, Bosch J (2012) Effects of body size and sociality on the anti-predator behaviour of foraging bees. Oikos 121:1473–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar