Hesitation behaviour of hoverflies Sphaerophoria spp. to avoid ambush by crab spiders

Pollinators possess several antipredator adaptations that minimise predation risk during foraging. In addition to morphological adaptations, hoverflies might have behavioural antipredator adaptations. We conducted three field experiments to investigate whether the “hesitation behaviour” of hoverflies Sphaerophoria spp., moving backwards and forwards in front of a flower, is effective in avoiding ambush predators on flowers. First, we compared the behaviour of different flower visitors, including several bees and other hoverflies, with Sphaerophoria spp. behaviour. Only Sphaerophoria spp. exhibited the hesitation behaviour in front of flowers. The flight behaviour was observed more frequently before landing on flowers than on leaves. Second, we investigated rejection by Sphaerophoria spp. to artificially placed corpses of the crab spider Thomisus labefactus. The rejection rate of flowers with a crab spider placed on or under it was significantly higher than that of non-treated flowers. Moreover, the presence of a spider on the flower decreased the number of hesitation displays, compared with non-treated flowers. Finally, to determine whether hesitation behaviour could be a consequence of floral assessment, we investigated hoverfly rejection of previously foraged flowers. Sphaerophoria spp. did not reject flowers that had been visited by the same individual or conspecifics within 3 min. We suggest that hesitation behaviour may be adaptive, enabling assessment of predation risk and hence avoiding ambush predators on flowers.

[1]  I. Robertson,et al.  Crab Spiders Deter Insect Visitations to Slickspot Peppergrass Flowers , 2005 .

[2]  D. Goulson,et al.  Flower constancy in the hoverflies Episyrphus balteatus (Degeer) and Syrphus ribesii (L.) (Syrphidae) , 1998 .

[3]  M. Edmunds,et al.  The mimicry between British Syrphidae (Diptera) and aculeate Hymenoptera. , 2000 .

[4]  G. Poppy,et al.  The influence of floral character on the foraging behaviour of the hoverfly, Episyrphus balteatus , 1999 .

[5]  J C Stout,et al.  The influence of nectar secretion rates on the responses of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) to previously visited flowers , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[6]  R. Dukas.  Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: Effects of predation risk on pollinators and plants , 2001 .

[7]  D. H. Morse.  Prey capture by the crab spider Misumena calycina (Araneae: Thomisidae) , 2004, Oecologia.

[8]  D. H. Morse.  Predatory risk to insects foraging at flowers , 1986 .

[9]  K. Miyashita.  Life history of Thomisus labefactus Karsch (Araneae: Thomisidae) , 1999 .

[10]  M. Edmunds,et al.  Behavioural mimicry of honeybees (Apis mellifera) by droneflies (Diptera: Syrphidae: Eristalis spp.) , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  A. R. Ennos,et al.  Similarity in flight behaviour between the honeybee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: apidae) and its presumed mimic, the dronefly Eristalis tenax (Diptera: syrphidae). , 2001, The Journal of experimental biology.

[12]  R. Dukas,et al.  Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees , 2001 .

[13]  L. Chittka,et al.  Pollinator attraction: Crab-spiders manipulate flower signals , 2003, Nature.

[14]  T. Kawecki.  Evolutionary ecology of learning: insights from fruit flies , 2009, Population Ecology.

[15]  L. Chittka.  Camouflage of predatory crab spiders on flowers and the colour perception of bees (Aranida : Thomisidae/Hymenoptera : Apidae) , 2001 .

[16]  F. Gilbert,et al.  DOES THE ABUNDANCE OF HOVERFLY (SYRPHIDAE) MIMICS DEPEND ON THE NUMBERS OF THEIR HYMENOPTERAN MODELS? , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  D. H. Morse,et al.  Crab spiders show mixed effects on flower-visiting bees and no effect on plant fitness components , 2005 .

[18]  Lars Chittka,et al.  The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals , 2006, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[19]  A. R. Ennos,et al.  Flight behaviour during foraging of the social wasp Vespula vulgaris (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) and four mimetic hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) Sericomyia silentis, Myathropa florea, Helophilus sp. and Syrphus sp. , 2005, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[20]  Lars Chittka,et al.  Facultative use of the repellent scent mark in foraging bumblebees: complex versus simple flowers , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[21]  Jérôme Casas,et al.  Visual systems: Predator and prey views of spider camouflage , 2002, Nature.

[22]  Peter Yeo,et al.  Natural history of pollination , 1947 .

[23]  A. D. Higginson,et al.  The effects of predation risk from crab spiders on bee foraging behavior , 2006 .

[24]  R. Dukas.  Bumblebee Preadators Reduce Pollinator Density and Plant Fitness , 2005 .

[25]  D. Goulson,et al.  Discrimination of Unrewarding Flowers by Bees; Direct Detection of Rewards and Use of Repellent Scent Marks , 2001, Journal of Insect Behavior.

[26]  D. H. Morse,et al.  Crab spiders affect flower visitation by bees , 2003 .

[27]  P. Kevan,et al.  Patch choice in the anthophilous ambush predator Phymata americana: improvement by switching hunting sites as part of the initial choice , 1995 .

[28]  D. Goulson,et al.  The use of heterospecific scent marks by the sweat bee Halictus aerarius , 2007, Naturwissenschaften.

[29]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  Plant-pollinator interactions: from specialization to generalization. , 2005 .

[30]  K. Lunau,et al.  Response of the hoverfly species Eristalis tenax towards floral dot guides with colour transition from red to yellow (Diptera: Syrphidae) , 2005 .