Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 165–170 | Cite as

Predatory behavior of Polybia sericea (Olivier), a tropical social wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)

  • M. A. Raveret Richter
  • R. L. Jeanne
Article

Summary

Polybia sericea (Olivier) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) foragers were trained to visit experimental foraging plots and tests were conducted to determine the role of visual, olfactory, and chemotactile cues in prey location. Foragers approached prey from downwind and hovered downwind of visual and olfactory stimuli. Olfactory cues were more likely to elicit landing than were visual cues. Biting of potential prey was most consistently elicited by a combination of visual, tactile, and chemotactile cues. Foragers encountering large prey carried a piece back to the nest and returned for prey remains. These returning foragers used visual cues to direct intensive aerial search; olfactory prey cues elicited landing.

Keywords

Large Prey Potential Prey Predatory Behavior Olfactory Stimulus Social Wasp 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Box G, Cox D (1964) An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc B 26:211–243Google Scholar
  2. Duncan C (1939) A contribution to the biology of North American vespine wasps. Stanford Univ Publ Biol Sci 8(1):1–272Google Scholar
  3. Evans H, West Eberhard MJ (1970) The wasps. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  4. Gaul A (1952) Additions to vespine biology X: Foraging and chemotaxis. Bull Brooklyn Entomol Soc 47:138–140Google Scholar
  5. Hirose Y, Takagi M (1980) Attraction of two species of Polistes wasp to prey wounded by them. Appl Entomol Zool 15(1):108–110Google Scholar
  6. Iwata K (1976) Evolution of instinct: Comparative ethology of Hymenoptera. Amerind, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  7. Jeanne R (1972) Social biology of the Neotropical wasp Mischocyttarus drewseni. Bull Mus Comp Zool Harv Univ 144(3):63–150Google Scholar
  8. Jeanne R (1981) Chemical communication during swarm emmigration in the social wasp Polybia sericea (Olivier). Anim Behav 29:102–113Google Scholar
  9. Keuls M (1952) The use of the “studentized range” in connection with an analysis of variance. Euphytica 1:112–122Google Scholar
  10. Lehner P (1979) Ethological methods. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Newman D (1939) The distribution of range in samples from a normal population, expressed in terms of an independent estimate of standard deviation. Biometrica 31:20–30Google Scholar
  12. Richards O (1978) The social wasps of the Americas excluding the Vespinae. British Museum (Natural History). LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Snedecor W, Cochran G (1967) Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  14. Takagi M, Hirose Y, Yamasaki M (1980) Prey-location learning in Polistes jadwigae Dalla Torre (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), field experiments on orientation. Kontyu 48(1):53–58Google Scholar
  15. Tinbergen N (1972) The animal in its world. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilson E (1971) The insect societies. Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Raveret Richter
    • 1
  • R. L. Jeanne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations