Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 642–655 | Cite as

Solitary Floral Specialists Do Not Respond to Cryptic Flower-Occupying Predators

  • Collin J. Schwantes
  • Adrian L. CarperEmail author
  • M. Deane Bowers


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.


Solitary bees Melissodes Phymata cryptic predator foraging risk avoidance behavior 



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.

Supplementary material (321.6 mb)
ESM 1 (MOV 329309 kb)


  1. Balduf WV (1943) Third annotated list of Phymata prey records (Phymatidae, Hemiptera). Ohio J Sci 43:74–78Google Scholar
  2. Bolker B (2017) Linear mixed-effects models using 'Eigen' and S4. Comprehensive R Archive NetworkGoogle Scholar
  3. Briscoe AD, Chittka L (2001) The evolution of color vision in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:471–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns JG (2005) Impulsive bees forage better: the advantage of quick, sometimes inaccurate foraging decisions. Anim Behav 70:e1–e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cane JH (2017) Specialist bees collect Asteraceae pollen by distinctive abdominal drumming (Osmia) or tapping (Melissodes, Svastra). Arthropod Plant Interact 11:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Dukas R (2001) Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees. Ecol Lett 4:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Heiling AM, Cheng K, Herberstein ME (2004) Exploitation of floral signals by crab spiders (Thomisus spectabilis, Thomisidae). Behav Ecol 15:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heiser CB (1947) Hybridization between the sunflower species Helianthus annuus and H. petiolaris. Evolution 1:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Ings TC, Chittka L (2008) Speed-accuracy tradeoffs and false alarms in bee responses to cryptic predators. Curr Biol 18:1520–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Ings TC, Wang MY, Chittka L (2012) Colour-independent shape recognition of cryptic predators by bumblebees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones EI (2010) Optimal foraging when predation risk increases with patch resources: an analysis of pollinators and ambush predators. Oikos 119:835–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kacelnik A, El Mouden C (2013) Triumphs and trials of the risk paradigm. Anim Behav 86:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Mason LG (1977) Prey preferences and ecological sexual dimorphism in Phymata americana Melin. Am Midl Nat 97:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Romero GQ, Antiqueira PAP, Koricheva J (2011) A meta-analysis of predation risk effects on pollinator behaviour. PLoS One 6:e20689. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Warton DI, Hui FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yong TH (2003) Nectar-feeding by a predatory ambush bug (Heteroptera : Phymatidae) that hunts on flowers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 96:643–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUCB 334, University of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations