Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on August 1, 2006
Behavioral Ecology 2006 17(6):933-939; doi:10.1093/beheco/arl027
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/6/933    most recent
arl027v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reader, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Reader, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

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

Tom Readera, Andrew D. Higginsona, Christopher J. Barnarda, Francis S. Gilberta and The Behavioural Ecology Field Coursea,b

a School of Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK b Department of Zoology, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

Address correspondence to T. Reader. E-mail: tom.reader{at}nottingham.ac.uk.

Recent studies have suggested that top–down effects of predation on plant–pollinator interactions may not be, as previously thought, rare and/or weak. In this paper, we explore the effects of crab spiders (Araneae: Thomisidae) on the behavior of 2 species of bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) foraging for nectar and pollen on 3 different plant species in central Portugal. In 2 experiments, we found that the eusocial bee Apis mellifera was significantly less likely to inspect and accept a flower or inflorescence if it harbored a spider. In contrast, we found no such effects of spiders on the behavior of the solitary bee Eucera notata. Further experiments showed that the effects of environmental cues associated with predators on flower visitation by A. mellifera were detectable even when no spider was present at the moment a flower was encountered. Such indirect effects were only identified, however, in bees foraging on 1 of 2 plant species studied. In a final experiment, A. mellifera was shown to respond negatively to the presence of the corpses of conspecifics glued to flowers. This suggests that prey corpses left exposed on petals or bracts by spiders provide an obvious cue that bees can use to avoid predators. These results add to a growing body of evidence that plant–pollinator interactions are not immune to the effects of predation and suggest that the strength of such effects vary both between and within species.

Key words: Apis mellifera, Eucera notata, flower visitation, inflorescence, pollination, top–down effects.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Proc R Soc BHome page
R. Brechbuhl, J. Casas, and S. Bacher
Ineffective crypsis in a crab spider: a prey community perspective
Proc R Soc B, November 4, 2009; (2009) rspb.2009.1632v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc R Soc BHome page
C. Fontaine, E. Thebault, and I. Dajoz
Are insect pollinators more generalist than insect herbivores?
Proc R Soc B, August 22, 2009; 276(1669): 3027 - 3033.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc R Soc BHome page
T. C. Ings and L. Chittka
Predator crypsis enhances behaviourally mediated indirect effects on plants by altering bumblebee foraging preferences
Proc R Soc B, June 7, 2009; 276(1664): 2031 - 2036.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.