4.1 Article

Colony growth and reproductive ability of feral nests of the introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris in northern Japan

期刊

INSECTES SOCIAUX
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 29-38

出版社

BIRKHAUSER VERLAG AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00040-009-0047-8

关键词

Biological invasion; Colony growth; Gyne production; Sex ratio; Propagule pressure

资金

  1. Pro Natura Foundation
  2. Global Environment Research Program
  3. Ministry of Environment, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The introduced Bombus terrestris has been blamed for the decline of native bumblebee populations in Japan. To control this invasive species, it is necessary to understand its ecological traits in its newly established range. Here, we investigated the colony growth pattern and reproductive ability of feral nests of B. terrestris in northern Japan from 2003 to 2006. Nests collected at various times showed initially slow growth followed by rapid development. This pattern is consistent with findings in previous studies using laboratory-raised colonies. Our results also suggested that protandrous colonies tend to specialize in male production, whereas protogynous colonies specialize in gyne production, producing a split sex ratio in feral colonies of B. terrestris. The numerical population sex ratio was 1.40 gynes per male, calculated from the numbers of pre-emergence cocoons for gynes and males, showing a female-biased sex ratio at the population level. Mature colonies produced a mean of 376.5 cocoons and 90.2 gyne cocoons (22.1% of the total). The proportion of gynes produced by B. terrestris nests exceeded both those of conspecifics observed in other countries and those of consubgeneric native Japanese species. The propagule pressure hypothesis appears to explain the probability of establishment of this invasive species. Suitable nest sites for B. terrestris queens appeared to be in short supply, and B. terrestris may win usurpation contests against native species due to its large size, resulting in the decline of native bumblebee species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据