Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked

Social bees are known to avoid inflorescences marked with dead conspecifics or their smell. The avoidance response could be triggered by alarm signals actively given by attacked bees or by substances passively released through injuries as a by-product of the attack. To discriminate between these two options we note that both social and solitary bees are expected to react to nonsignalling cues associated with predation risk, while only social bees are expected to give alarm signals. We simulated risky inflorescences by pinching a landing bee with forceps, and compared the rate at which bees visited these experimental inflorescences and unmanipulated control inflorescences. We conducted the experiment with four species of social bees, Apis mellifera, Apis dorsata, Apis florea and Bombus terrestris and with three species of solitary bees, Eucera sp., Panurgus sp. and Nomia strigata. We found that while the three species of solitary bees responded similarly to control and experimental inflorescences, all four species of social bees strongly rejected inflorescences where we simulated a predation attempt. The finding that only social species avoided landing on dangerous inflorescences strongly suggests that the release of the alarm cue has been selected for its signalling value in social bees. (C) 2012 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Llandres Lopez, Ana, Gonzálves, Francisco G., Rodríguez-Gironés, Miguel A.
Format: article biblioteca
Language:eng
Subjects:L20 - Écologie animale, F40 - Écologie végétale,
Online Access:http://agritrop.cirad.fr/582256/
http://agritrop.cirad.fr/582256/2/Llandres%20et%20al%202013.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id dig-cirad-fr-582256
record_format koha
spelling dig-cirad-fr-5822562022-04-15T14:11:16Z http://agritrop.cirad.fr/582256/ http://agritrop.cirad.fr/582256/ Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked. Llandres Lopez Ana, Gonzálves Francisco G., Rodríguez-Gironés Miguel A.. 2013. Animal Behaviour, 85 : 97-102.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.012 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.012> Researchers Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked Llandres Lopez, Ana Gonzálves, Francisco G. Rodríguez-Gironés, Miguel A. eng 2013 Animal Behaviour L20 - Écologie animale F40 - Écologie végétale Social bees are known to avoid inflorescences marked with dead conspecifics or their smell. The avoidance response could be triggered by alarm signals actively given by attacked bees or by substances passively released through injuries as a by-product of the attack. To discriminate between these two options we note that both social and solitary bees are expected to react to nonsignalling cues associated with predation risk, while only social bees are expected to give alarm signals. We simulated risky inflorescences by pinching a landing bee with forceps, and compared the rate at which bees visited these experimental inflorescences and unmanipulated control inflorescences. We conducted the experiment with four species of social bees, Apis mellifera, Apis dorsata, Apis florea and Bombus terrestris and with three species of solitary bees, Eucera sp., Panurgus sp. and Nomia strigata. We found that while the three species of solitary bees responded similarly to control and experimental inflorescences, all four species of social bees strongly rejected inflorescences where we simulated a predation attempt. The finding that only social species avoided landing on dangerous inflorescences strongly suggests that the release of the alarm cue has been selected for its signalling value in social bees. (C) 2012 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. article info:eu-repo/semantics/article Journal Article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://agritrop.cirad.fr/582256/2/Llandres%20et%20al%202013.pdf text Cirad license info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess https://agritrop.cirad.fr/mention_legale.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.012 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.012 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.012 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/purl/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.012
institution CIRAD FR
collection DSpace
country Francia
countrycode FR
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
databasecode dig-cirad-fr
tag biblioteca
region Europa del Oeste
libraryname Biblioteca del CIRAD Francia
language eng
topic L20 - Écologie animale
F40 - Écologie végétale
L20 - Écologie animale
F40 - Écologie végétale
spellingShingle L20 - Écologie animale
F40 - Écologie végétale
L20 - Écologie animale
F40 - Écologie végétale
Llandres Lopez, Ana
Gonzálves, Francisco G.
Rodríguez-Gironés, Miguel A.
Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked
description Social bees are known to avoid inflorescences marked with dead conspecifics or their smell. The avoidance response could be triggered by alarm signals actively given by attacked bees or by substances passively released through injuries as a by-product of the attack. To discriminate between these two options we note that both social and solitary bees are expected to react to nonsignalling cues associated with predation risk, while only social bees are expected to give alarm signals. We simulated risky inflorescences by pinching a landing bee with forceps, and compared the rate at which bees visited these experimental inflorescences and unmanipulated control inflorescences. We conducted the experiment with four species of social bees, Apis mellifera, Apis dorsata, Apis florea and Bombus terrestris and with three species of solitary bees, Eucera sp., Panurgus sp. and Nomia strigata. We found that while the three species of solitary bees responded similarly to control and experimental inflorescences, all four species of social bees strongly rejected inflorescences where we simulated a predation attempt. The finding that only social species avoided landing on dangerous inflorescences strongly suggests that the release of the alarm cue has been selected for its signalling value in social bees. (C) 2012 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
format article
topic_facet L20 - Écologie animale
F40 - Écologie végétale
author Llandres Lopez, Ana
Gonzálves, Francisco G.
Rodríguez-Gironés, Miguel A.
author_facet Llandres Lopez, Ana
Gonzálves, Francisco G.
Rodríguez-Gironés, Miguel A.
author_sort Llandres Lopez, Ana
title Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked
title_short Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked
title_full Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked
title_fullStr Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked
title_full_unstemmed Social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked
title_sort social but not solitary bees reject dangerous flowers where a conspecific has recently been attacked
url http://agritrop.cirad.fr/582256/
http://agritrop.cirad.fr/582256/2/Llandres%20et%20al%202013.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT llandreslopezana socialbutnotsolitarybeesrejectdangerousflowerswhereaconspecifichasrecentlybeenattacked
AT gonzalvesfranciscog socialbutnotsolitarybeesrejectdangerousflowerswhereaconspecifichasrecentlybeenattacked
AT rodriguezgironesmiguela socialbutnotsolitarybeesrejectdangerousflowerswhereaconspecifichasrecentlybeenattacked
_version_ 1758025142516056064