Your activity: 14 p.v.

Stinging insects: Avoidance

Stinging insects: Avoidance
Authors:
Nancy L Breisch, PhD
Albert Greene, PhD
Section Editor:
David BK Golden, MD
Deputy Editor:
Elizabeth TePas, MD, MS
Literature review current through: Nov 2022. | This topic last updated: Mar 08, 2021.

INTRODUCTION — The stinging Hymenoptera are taxonomically divided into three principal groups: ants, bees, and wasps (figure 1). The majority of allergic reactions to stings are due to this order of insects. This topic reviews avoidance of the flying Hymenoptera that include bees, yellow jackets, hornets, and wasps.

The biology and identification of the flying Hymenoptera, as well as fire ants, which are also members of the Hymenoptera order, are discussed separately. (See "Stinging insects: Biology and identification" and "Entomology and control of imported fire ants".)

Diagnosis and management of stinging insect allergy are discussed separately. (See "Bee, yellow jacket, wasp, and other Hymenoptera stings: Reaction types and acute management" and "Diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy" and "Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: Efficacy, indications, and mechanism of action" and "Stings of imported fire ants: Clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment".)

AVOIDANCE OF STINGS FROM INDIVIDUAL WORKERS — The public often mistakenly thinks of bees and wasps as inherently aggressive under any circumstances due to the ease with which some colonies are stimulated to attack in defense of their nest. In reality, individual workers away from the nest tend to narrowly focus on foraging and typically ignore humans, even when close to them. Stings are almost always provoked by firm, accidental contact, such as stepping on a worker, taking the insect into the mouth with food or drink, or pressing/striking a bee or wasp with the hand. The risk of being stung is therefore elevated in locations where large numbers of bees or wasps have congregated to feed, particularly where humans are doing the same [1-4].

Personal behavior — Preventive measures in locations, such as picnic areas and concession stands, involve minimizing accidental contact with foragers. This includes [4,5]:

Maintaining a high level of vigilance as to the presence of bees and wasps in the immediate vicinity

Not walking with exposed feet

Exercising care with beverages

Drinking directly out of cans or bottles presents the greatest risk since these containers are readily entered by inquisitive foragers that are subsequently concealed from view. Tightly lidded cups with inserted straws are often recommended as safer than open cups but do not totally exclude entry by the smaller species. Open cups or glasses that afford an unobstructed view of the liquid are probably the safest option.

There are no effective repellent products for foraging bees or wasps, despite advertising claims to the contrary. The most appropriate advice may be simply to not eat or drink outdoors during the warm months, depending upon the extent of a patient's concern [6].

Wardrobe and cosmetics — Public information distributed by the medical community often contains advice concerning wardrobe and cosmetic selection to minimize the chances of being stung. For example, "Many stinging insects are foraging for food, so do not look or smell like a flower. Avoid brightly colored clothing and perfume when outdoors" [7]. In fact, there is no empiric evidence that perfume or bright, floral-colored clothing significantly increases a person's attractiveness to foraging Hymenoptera or the risk of getting stung by them. To the contrary, the principal components of lavender, a floral scent widely used in perfumes and cosmetics, have been experimentally shown to reduce the aggressive response triggered by honey bee alarm pheromone, thereby exerting a calming effect on disturbed bees [8].

Orientation to flowers by honey bees is governed by a complex suite of integrated factors that include floral colors, patterns, and shapes; specific floral odors supplemented by multiple olfactory cues provided by the local environment; and the recent foraging history of individual workers [9-11]. A preconception of what a target item looks like and where it is found, termed the "search image," is derived from the aggregate of specific visual stimuli used by an organism to detect its food. Unlike humans, bees are most sensitive to the short-wavelength end of the spectrum, particularly ultraviolet light, followed by blue-violet and green. They are least sensitive to orange and cannot perceive red [10,11]. As a result, flowers that depend upon bees for pollination typically have evolved distinctive ultraviolet patterns that are highly visible to the insects but are often not perceived by humans [11,12]. The search image of foraging bees is therefore unlikely to be triggered by a large patch of colored cloth that appears bright to humans but has limited or no biologic significance to Hymenoptera [6].

In contrast to apparel, it would seem more likely that some cosmetic fragrances might attract the attention of nearby foragers. Both honey bees and certain vespine species collect carbohydrates from a wide array of natural and manmade sources besides floral nectar, particularly fermenting fruit and sweet beverages and foods [13,14]. Orientation to these resources involves olfactory recognition of distinctive volatile cues [14-16]. Nevertheless, there are no published data demonstrating a significant attractive effect of any cosmetic product for any Hymenoptera species.

An example of a different type of potential association between fragrances and stinging risk is the alarm pheromone produced by the giant hornet of Japan, Vespa mandarinia. Alarm pheromones are chemical compounds that are released by bees or wasps to attract other colony members to the location to aid in defense. The giant hornet of Japan has an alarm pheromone that incorporates alcohols and esters that are also used in food flavorings and cosmetic fragrances [17]. However, it is unknown whether or not any specific product incorporating these chemicals elicits defensive behavior by this species.

Forager reduction — Another approach to avoiding stings associated with foraging bees and wasps involves implementing measures to reduce the number of foragers.

One method is to minimize local sources of attraction [1,4,5]:

Tightly cover food and waste receptacles.

Frequently clean surfaces of food residue.

Frequently remove refuse, fallen fruit, and dog or other animal feces (since the attendant flies are hunted by some wasp species).

Eliminate landscape plantings that attract large numbers of carbohydrate-seeking Hymenoptera. This measure is generally justified only in extreme circumstances. In many cases, Hymenoptera are not attracted to the flowers or fruit on these plants but to "honeydew," the sugar-rich excrement of sap-sucking insects, such as aphids, mealybugs, and scales.

A more direct tactic is to attempt to reduce forager populations with the use of baits, either by luring the insects into traps or as a means to deliver a pesticide:

Numerous models of wasp traps are on the market [18,19]. However, they tend to be swamped by the constantly replenishing colonies within foraging range unless very large numbers of traps are deployed and continually serviced. Thus, traps are of dubious value in protecting a given location [19-21].

Toxic baiting programs hold the greatest promise for success, but most aspects of their methodology are still under development [16,22-24]. Challenges that need to be solved to make this a viable approach include affordability, insecticide efficacy, exclusion of nontarget species, and sustainability of bait attractiveness.

AVOIDANCE OF STINGS FROM COLONIES — Practical risk avoidance measures are limited. Maintaining a continuous, effective level of vigilance for social wasp or bee colonies while outdoors is beyond the capability of many people.

Group defensive behavior by a social wasp or bee colony may be elicited by considerably more subtle stimuli than the pressure of direct contact needed to provoke stinging from most individual foragers. Typically, an abrupt movement of the nest (often due to vibration of its immediate surroundings) will trigger defensive behavior by a colony. However, in some cases, just nearby motion, the approach of a dark object, or mammalian breath is a sufficient stimulus [1,25-27]. The consequences for the human or animal source of the disturbance are usually far more severe than from an encounter with an individual forager. Many species use an alarm pheromone to rapidly recruit workers for defense during an emergency. Thus, large colonies are potentially capable of delivering hundreds, or even thousands, of stings almost instantaneously [26,28].

Arousal thresholds and intensity of aggressive response vary widely among social Hymenoptera and are dependent upon genetic lineage and a colony's age, size, and history of disturbance [1,25,27,29]. A colony that was previously aroused will often attack with far less provocation than one that has never been disturbed. The major problem universally posed by these insects is the cryptic nature of their nests, many of which are totally concealed in protected cavities either above or below ground. Even large, exposed nests in vegetation or attached to structures are typically obscured by foliage, overhangs, or shadow [25].

Colony control and avoidance — Visible nests should be removed by a trained professional. In addition, individuals with stinging insect allergy should avoid activities that may disturb a colony, such as mowing the lawn or pruning a hedge.

Preventive measures normally involve killing the workers (or sometimes capturing them, in the case of honey bees) if a social wasp or bee nest is observed in an undesirable location. This activity should not be attempted by anyone other than a licensed pest control professional who has received specialized training and is equipped with clothing designed specifically to protect against stings, even though insecticide products labeled for stinging insect control are readily available to the general public [3,4]. The process often requires extensive measures to protect the safety of bystanders [30,31]. The precise methodology of nest control operations is highly variable, depending upon species and circumstances, and is beyond the scope of this topic review.

An undiscovered, concealed bee or wasp nest is the most hazardous and may be encountered virtually anywhere. The single greatest risk factor for multiple stinging by a disturbed colony is simply being outdoors in a spot not frequented by humans. This typically implies an area with vegetation. Thus, the more time spent in natural locales (particularly off well-established paths), the higher the risk. For people who live and work in developed locations, activities in parks, yards, or gardens are most likely to bring them into accidental contact with a social bee or wasp nest. Those activities producing vibration and disturbance to vegetation, such as accompanying a dog or mowing, pruning, or string trimming, are most likely to result in stinging [1,26]. In particular, gasoline-powered lawn mowers have the distinction of being perhaps the most efficient means for stimulating wasp or bee colonies to attack. These machines are "the perfect predator" from the insects' point of view since they produce noise, vibration, odors, and heat [26].

Personal rescue actions — Outdoor activities are either difficult to avoid or highly pleasurable for many people. Therefore, the most useful advice often involves a few commonsense guidelines for personal behavior once a nest is disturbed [26,32]:

Individuals should slowly walk away from the area without flailing the arms if only a few bees or wasps are flying around them. Sudden motion often exacerbates attack behavior and increases the chance of accidental contact.

Individuals should cover their mouth and nose and run from the area without delay if many insects suddenly start to fly around them or if they are being stung. Stinging insects tend to target the facial area, which can quickly produce panic and disorientation in the victim.

If possible, persons under attack by bees or wasps should seek shelter in a building or enclosed vehicle.

Mitigating the severity of attacks — Few readily deployed measures that might mitigate the intensity of social insect defensive reactions are available:

Attacking bees and wasps are strongly attracted to dark colors (one reason why eyes, mouth, and nostrils are selectively targeted), so white or very light-colored clothing that covers most of the body should confer some advantage [32,33].

Mixed results have been reported on the efficacy of an aerosol spray of the common insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) in decreasing the magnitude of mass honey bee attacks [34,35].

Smoke reduces defensive behavior in both honey bees and yellow jackets [33], although this would seem to have limited practical value in an unexpected confrontation.

Persons with outdoor occupations that present an elevated risk for disturbing bee and wasp colonies have the option of carrying at least minimal protective equipment with them (eg, a compact mesh veil to cover the head). Firefighters in natural areas are urged to take refuge in a personal fire shelter (a standard protective item made from aluminum foil, fiberglass, and woven silica) in the case of severe stinging insect attack [32].

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Contrary to popular folklore, worker bees and wasps away from their nests are not aggressive toward humans and have to be firmly touched before they will sting. Personal protection therefore largely involves heightened awareness in areas where these insects are abundant, particularly when eating or drinking. (See 'Avoidance of stings from individual workers' above and 'Personal behavior' above.)

There is no evidence that wearing perfume or bright, floral-colored clothing attracts bees and wasps or elevates sting risk, despite widespread advice to the contrary. (See 'Wardrobe and cosmetics' above.)

Sanitation measures that minimize food and food waste available to worker bees and wasps tend to be more effective in reducing their numbers than other methods. Toxic baiting techniques for area-wide abatement of foraging yellow jackets are still largely in the experimental stage. Available traps for these wasps typically do not capture sufficient workers to significantly reduce sting risk. (See 'Forager reduction' above.)

Preventing stings from colonies is more problematic than with individual foragers and depends mostly upon personal awareness when disturbing vegetation, particularly when doing yard work. The most effective measure in mitigating the severity of a mass attack is probably the wearing of white or light-colored clothing while outdoors. (See 'Avoidance of stings from colonies' above.)

Individuals should back slowly away from the area without making any sudden movements if a few bees or wasps start flying around them. However, individuals should cover their mouth and nose and run from the area and seek shelter in a building or enclosed vehicle if large numbers of insects begin flying around them or they are being stung. (See 'Personal rescue actions' above.)

  1. Akre RD, MacDonald JF. Biology, economic importance and control of yellow jackets. In: Economic impact and control of social insects, Vinson SB (Ed), Praeger, New York 1986. p.353.
  2. Vetter RS, Visscher PK. Bites and stings of medically important venomous arthropods. Int J Dermatol 1998; 37:481.
  3. Bennett GW, Owens JM, Corrigan RM. Truman's scientific guide to pest management operations, Advanstar, Cleveland 2003.
  4. Mallis A. Handbook of pest control, GIE Media, Cleveland 2004.
  5. Pinto L. Using IPM against yellowjackets and honey bees. Pest Control 1988; 66:12.
  6. Greene A, Breisch NL. Avoidance of bee and wasp stings: an entomological perspective. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2005; 5:337.
  7. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, Public Education Committee. Tips to remember: Stinging insect allergy. www.aaaai.org/patients/publicedmat/tips/stinginginsect.stm (Accessed on July 15, 2009).
  8. Nouvian M, Hotier L, Claudianos C, et al. Appetitive floral odours prevent aggression in honeybees. Nat Commun 2015; 6:10247.
  9. Michener CD. The bees of the world, Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore 2007.
  10. Winston ML. The biology of the honey bee, Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA 1987.
  11. Gould JL, Gould CG. The honey bee, Scientific Amer Library, New York 1988.
  12. Free JB. The effect of flower shape and nectar guides on the behaviour of foraging honeybees. Behaviour 1970; 37:269.
  13. Edwards R. Social wasps: Their biology and control, Rentokil, East Grinstead, UK 1980.
  14. Richter MR. Social wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) foraging behavior. Annu Rev Entomol 2000; 45:121.
  15. Jander R. Olfactory learning of fruit odors in the eastern yellow jacket, Vespula maculifrons (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J Insect Behav 1998; 11:879.
  16. Day SE, Jeanne RL. Food volatiles as attractants for yellowjackets (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Environ Entomol 2001; 30:157.
  17. Ono M, Terabe H, Hori H, Sasaki M. Insect signalling: components of giant hornet alarm pheromone. Nature 2003; 424:637.
  18. Christie GD. Evaluation of non-toxic bait traps for yellowjacket control. Pest Control 1994; 62:38.
  19. Gulmahamad H. Yellowjacket control gets creative. Pest Control 2002; 70:34.
  20. Cooper P. Taking the bite out of bee sting occurrences. Pest Control 1998; 66:40.
  21. Toft RJ, Harris RJ. Can trapping control Asian paper wasp (Polistes chinensis antennalis) populations. N Z J Ecol 2004; 28:279.
  22. Beggs JR, Toft RJ, Malham JP, et al. The difficulty of reducing introduced wasp (Vespula vulgaris) populations for conservation gains. N Z J Ecol 1998; 22:55.
  23. Harris RJ, Etheridge ND. Comparison of baits containing fipronil and sulfluramid for the control of Vespula wasps. N Z J Zool 2001; 28:39.
  24. Sackmann P, Rabinovich M, Corley JC. Successful removal of German yellowjackets (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) by toxic baiting. J Econ Entomol 2001; 94:811.
  25. Akre RD, Reed HC. Vespine defense. In: Defensive mechanisms in social insects, Hermann HR (Ed), Praeger, New York 1984. p.59.
  26. Schmidt JO, Boyer Hassen LV. When Africanized bees attack: what you and your clients should know. Vet Med 1996; 91:923.
  27. Schmidt JO. Mass action in honey bees: Alarm, swarming and the role of releaser pheromones. In: Pheromone communication in social insects, Meer RK, Breed MD, Espelie KE, Winston ML (Eds), Westview Press, Boulder, CO 1988. p.257.
  28. Winston ML. Killer bees: The Africanized honey bee in the Americas., Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA 1992.
  29. Breed MD, Guzmán-Novoa E, Hunt GJ. Defensive behavior of honey bees: organization, genetics, and comparisons with other bees. Annu Rev Entomol 2004; 49:271.
  30. Greene A. Born to gnaw. Pest Control Tech 2003; 31:49.
  31. Greene A. Sucking up stingers. Pest Control Tech 2004; 32:70.
  32. Vetter RS, Parker BT, Visscher PK. Can fire shelters protect firefighters from bee and yellowjacket stings. Fire Mgmt Notes 1998; 58:21.
  33. Visscher PK, Vetter RS. Smoke and target color effects on defensive behavior in yellowjacket wasps and bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Vespidae, Apidae) with a description of an electronic attack monitor. J Econ Entomol 1995; 88:579.
  34. Collins AM, Rubink WL, Cuadriello Aguilar JI, Hellmich RL II. Use of insect repellents for dispersing defending honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Econ Entomol 1996; 89:608.
  35. Schmidt JO, Johnston AN, Ginter DL, Spangler HG. Olfactory stimulation of Africanized honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) attacks by insect repellents. J Med Entomol 2003; 40:275.
Topic 4094 Version 9.0

References