2007
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-007-0510-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Parental care and sexual size dimorphism in wasps and bees

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The males were smaller than females, as commonly observed in insects [29,45]. They also had very low overall fat content and a proportion of fat comparable to the one of B1 females, consistent with the idea that fat reserves are for overwintering and colony founding [13].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The males were smaller than females, as commonly observed in insects [29,45]. They also had very low overall fat content and a proportion of fat comparable to the one of B1 females, consistent with the idea that fat reserves are for overwintering and colony founding [13].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…In contrast, the low size variability in B1 females of H. scabiosae is consistent with the parental manipulation hypothesis [22]: it suggests that foundresses constrain the food resources to rear uniformly small B1 females that will behave as workers. Conversely, if the survival and fecundity of reproductive females (gynes) increase gradually with body size and energetic reserves [13,29,45], variation in resources or brood number might result in high size variability in B2 females.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A multitude of biotic and small‐scale environmental factors were previously hypothesized or demonstrated to correlate with mating systems or SSD. They include heterogeneity in the quality of territories (Verner and Willson , Orians ), population density (Lukas and Clutton‐Brock ), spatial and temporal clumping of resources (Emlen and Oring ), prey type (Krüger , Shreeves and Field ), male display behaviour (Székely et al , Serrano‐Meneses and Székely ) or breeding in cooperative groups (Rubenstein and Lovette ). Due to the lack of species‐specific data on these variables, it is currently impossible to model effects of these factors on a global scale.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previously, these differences have been attributed to biogeographic factors, such as latitude (Martin, Proulx, & Magnan, 2014) and/or methodological influences such as sampling biases (e.g., the range of sampled body sizes, Sage, 1982). Importantly, they have also notably failed to incorporate sexual size dimorphism which is common in invertebrates (Shreeves & Field, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%