4.6 Article

Substantial variability in morphological scaling among bumblebee colonies

Journal

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211436

Keywords

allometry; colony; hive; scaling; bumblebee

Funding

  1. Swiss Research Council [20191425, 20190641]
  2. Vetenskapradet [RGP0002/2017]
  3. Human Frontiers Science Program [2018-06238]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined differences in organ scaling among colonies of bumblebees and found variations in scaling relationships, indicating potential trade-offs in morphological investment. Despite exposure to different rearing temperatures, environmental variability did not explain the differences in scaling relationships.
Differences in organ scaling among individuals may play an important role in determining behavioural variation. In social insects, there are well-documented intraspecific differences in colony behaviour, but the extent that organ scaling differs within and between colonies remains unclear. Using 12 different colonies of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris, we aim to address this knowledge gap by measuring the scaling relationships between three different organs (compound eyes, wings and antennae) and body size in workers. Though colonies were exposed to different rearing temperatures, this environmental variability did not explain the differences of the scaling relationships. Two colonies had differences in wing versus antenna slopes, three colonies showed differences in wing versus eye slopes and a single colony has differences between eye versus antenna slopes. There are also differences in antennae scaling slopes between three different colonies, and we present evidence for putative trade-offs in morphological investment. We discuss the utility of having variable scaling among colonies and the implication for understanding variability in colony fitness and behaviour.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available