Why are so Many Bees but so Few Digger Wasps Social? The Effect of Provisioning Mode and Helper Efficiency on the Distribution of Sociality Among the Apoidea

Strohm, Erhard; Liebig, Jörgen

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75957-7_5

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such increased efficiency in foraging may have even been important in promoting the evolution of eusociality, since social behaviour is unstable unless it provides important economic benefits and fitness gains to the individuals [42]. As a matter of fact, eusociality arose at least five times independently within AtM-lineages, while apparently only once within UtM-lineages (see also [43,44] for theoretical predictions on the link between food resource and social evolution in Hymenoptera).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food load manipulation ability shapes flight morphology in females of central-place foraging Hymenoptera

Polidori

Crottini²,

Venezia

et al. 2013

Front Zool

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEcological constraints related to foraging are expected to affect the evolution of morphological traits relevant to food capture, manipulation and transport. Females of central-place foraging Hymenoptera vary in their food load manipulation ability. Bees and social wasps modulate the amount of food taken per foraging trip (in terms of e.g. number of pollen grains or parts of prey), while solitary wasps carry exclusively entire prey items. We hypothesized that the foraging constraints acting on females of the latter species, imposed by the upper limit to the load size they are able to transport in flight, should promote the evolution of a greater load-lifting capacity and manoeuvrability, specifically in terms of greater flight muscle to body mass ratio and lower wing loading.ResultsOur comparative study of 28 species confirms that, accounting for shared ancestry, female flight muscle ratio was significantly higher and wing loading lower in species taking entire prey compared to those that are able to modulate load size. Body mass had no effect on flight muscle ratio, though it strongly and negatively co-varied with wing loading. Across species, flight muscle ratio and wing loading were negatively correlated, suggesting coevolution of these traits.ConclusionsNatural selection has led to the coevolution of resource load manipulation ability and morphological traits affecting flying ability with additional loads in females of central-place foraging Hymenoptera. Release from load-carrying constraints related to foraging, which took place with the evolution of food load manipulation ability, has selected against the maintenance of a powerful flight apparatus. This could be the case since investment in flight muscles may have to be traded against other life-history traits, such as reproductive investment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food load manipulation ability shapes flight morphology in females of central-place foraging Hymenoptera

Polidori

Crottini²,

Venezia

et al. 2013

Front Zool

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alloparental care is considered a major prerequisite for the evolution of eusociality in the latter group [10,60]. The major role of the altruistic helpers in Hymenopteran societies is the provisioning and raising of brood (classified as life insurers by Queller & Strassmann [6]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the propagation of the corresponding alleles through non-offspring relatives) [8]. In general, brood care of siblings has emerged as the common factor favouring social life in ants [3,4,9], bees [10,11] and many wasps [4,12]. The importance of brood care for social evolution was also supported by studies on cooperatively breeding vertebrates [1,2,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brood care and social evolution in termites

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative brood care is assumed to be the common driving factor leading to sociality. While this seems to be true for social Hymenoptera and many cooperatively breeding vertebrates, the importance of brood care for the evolution of eusociality in termites is unclear. A first step in elucidating this problem is an assessment of the ancestral condition in termites. We investigated this by determining the overall level of brood care behaviour across four termite species that cover the phylogenetic diversity of the lower termites. Brood care was low in the three species (all from different families) that had an ancestral wood-dwelling lifestyle of living in a single piece of wood that serves as food and shelter. In the fourth species, a lower termite that evolved outside foraging, brood care was more common. Together with data for higher termites, this suggests that brood care in termites only becomes important when switching from a wood-dwelling to a foraging lifestyle. These results imply that early social evolution in termites was driven by benefits of increased defence, while eusociality in Hymenoptera and cooperative breeding in birds and mammals are primarily based on brood care.

show abstract

“…In contrast to the termites, social Hymenoptera are holometabolous insects. Their young are altricial, grub-like larvae which strongly depend on brood care, especially as social Hymenoptera always evolved from species with progressive food provisioning of the progeny [ 13 , 14 , 44 ]. This provides ample opportunities for alloparental care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All this contrasts with most social Hymenoptera/ants which do not inhabit a bonanza type food resource. Social Hymenoptera seem to overcome local resource competition within a colony – and thus selection for dispersal – by increasing food intake through increased numbers of foragers [ 44 ]. 'Pay to stay' theory predicts that when staying of individuals poses costs to the dominant breeder rent payment can be selected [ 56 , 57 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Termites, hemimetabolous diploid white ants?

Korb

2008

Front Zool

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ants and termites are the most abundant animals on earth. Their ecological success is attributed to their social life. They live in colonies consisting of few reproducing individuals, while the large majority of colony members (workers/soldiers) forego reproduction at least temporarilly. Despite their apparent resemblance in social organisation, both groups evolved social life independently. Termites are basically social cockroaches, while ants evolved from predatory wasps. In this review, I will concentrate on termites with an ancestral life type, the wood-dwelling termites, to compare them with ants. Their different ancestries provided both groups with different life history preadaptations for social evolution. Like their closest relatives, the woodroaches, wood-dwelling termites live inside their food, a piece of wood. Thus, intensive costly food provisioning of their young is not necessary, especially as young instars are rather independent due to their hemimetabolous development. In contrast, ants are progressive food provisioners which have to care intensively for their helpless brood. Corresponding to the precocial -altricial analogy, helping by workers is selected in ants, while new evidence suggests that wood-dwelling termite workers are less engaged in brood care. Rather they seem to stay in the nest because there is generally low selection for dispersal. The nest presents a safe haven with no local resource competition as long as food is abundant (which is generally the case), while founding a new colony is very risky. Despite these differences between ants and termites, their common dwelling life style resulted in convergent evolution, especially winglessness, that probably accounts for the striking similarity between both groups. In ants, all workers are wingless and winglessness in sexuals evolved in several taxa as a derived trait. In wood-dwelling termites, workers are by default wingless as they are immatures. These immatures can develop into winged sexuals that disperse and found a new nest or into neotenic replacement reproductives that inherit the natal colony. Depending on the worker instar from which the latter develop, the neotenic reproductives are either apterous or brachypterous, but never winged. I propose that this wing polyphenism might present a basis for the evolution of social life in termites.

show abstract

Why are so Many Bees but so Few Digger Wasps Social? The Effect of Provisioning Mode and Helper Efficiency on the Distribution of Sociality Among the Apoidea

Cited by 11 publications

References 75 publications

Food load manipulation ability shapes flight morphology in females of central-place foraging Hymenoptera

Food load manipulation ability shapes flight morphology in females of central-place foraging Hymenoptera

Brood care and social evolution in termites

Termites, hemimetabolous diploid white ants?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About