To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Research on camouflage focusses on the ways animals make themselves inconspicuous against their background (Thayer 1909; Cott 1940; Ruxton et al. 2004). A common means of achieving inconspicuousness involves crypsis via background matching. In the visual domain we focus on here, this means possessing a phenotype that matches the colours, patterns and brightness of its surrounding background (Stevens & Merilaita 2009). The traditional focus on animals being the active players that match themselves against a passive background is well justified when the background is not a live entity. In many cases, however, animals’ immediate surroundings are either plants or larger animals. Examples include ambush predators on either flowers or foliage, herbivores on plants and small parasites on large hosts. In such cases, the background organisms may actually be active players that coevolve with the animals that use them as a backdrop. This important feature of animal camouflage requires detailed evaluation.
Almost all pollination studies neglect the possible effects of predation on flower visitors. Various authors have even claimed that predation is too infrequent to influence pollinator behavior. It is tempting to dismiss the role of predation because it is rarely observed. In the past two decades, however, ecologists have learned to appreciate the central role that predation risk plays in animal behavior and ecology, mostly through a variety of measures animals take to minimize predation. Studies on a wide variety of animals from zooplankton to mammals have suggested that predation risk affects: diurnal patterns of activity; choice of diet, habitat, food patches, and food type; ways of handling food items; social organization; choice of nest sites; and various physiological factors such as diurnal and seasonal levels of fat reserves and respiration patterns (Price et al. 1980; Lawton 1986; Bernays & Graham 1988; Lima & Dill 1990; Clark 1993; Martin 1995; Lima 1998a, b; Ydenberg 1998).
Are flower-visiting animals really immune to predation, or does the prevailing view about the unimportance of predation in pollination systems merely reflect researchers' inattention? In this chapter, I shall review some of the literature and argue that pollination ecologists have mostly overlooked a central factor influencing pollinator traits and pollination systems. Specifically, I ask: (1) Are there significant levels of predation on pollinators? (2) How might predation affect pollinator traits? And, (3) how might predation influence pollinator–plant interactions?
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.