English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Predator avoidance and foraging often pose conflicting demands. Animals can decrease mortality risk searching for predators, but searching decreases foraging time and hence intake. We used this principle to investigate how prey should use information to detect, assess and respond to predation risk from an optimal foraging perspective. A mathematical model showed that solitary bees should increase flower examination time in response to predator cues and that the rate of false alarms should be negatively correlated with the relative value of the flower explored. The predatory ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, and the harmless ant, Polyrhachis dives, differ in the profile of volatiles they emit and in their visual appearance. As predicted, the solitary bee Nomia strigata spent more time examining virgin flowers in presence of predator cues than in their absence. Furthermore, the proportion of flowers rejected decreased from morning to noon, as the relative value of virgin flowers increased. In addition, bees responded differently to visual and chemical cues. While chemical cues induced bees to search around flowers, bees detecting visual cues hovered in front of them. These strategies may allow prey to identify the nature of visual cues and to locate the source of chemical cues.

Seeing is believing: information content and behavioural response to visual and chemical cues