4.5 Article

Regulation of life history determines lifespan of worker honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 1020-1032

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2007.06.002

关键词

aging; biodemograhy; division of labor; foraging; life history; social insects

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG022500-04, P01 AG022500-05, P01 AG022500-040001, P01 AG22500, P01 AG022500] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Life expectancy of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) is of general interest to gerontological research because its variability among different groups of bees is one of the most striking cases of natural plasticity of aging. Worker honey bees spend their first days of adult life working in the nest, then transition to foraging and die between 4 and 8 weeks of age. Foraging is believed to be primarily responsible for the early death of workers. Three large-scale experiments were performed to quantitatively assess the importance of flight activity, chronological age, extrinsic mortality factors and foraging specialization. Forager mortality was higher than in-hive bee mortality. Most importantly however, reducing the external mortality hazards and foraging activity did not lead to the expected strong extension of life. Most of the experimental effects were attributable to an earlier transition from hive tasks to foraging. This transition is accompanied by a significant mortality peak. The age at the onset of foraging is the central variable in worker life-history and behavioral state was found more important than chronological age for honey bee aging. However, mortality risk increased with age and the negative relation between pre-foraging and foraging lifespan indicate some senescence irrespective of behavioral state. Overall, honey bee workers exhibit a logistic mortality dynamic which is mainly caused by the age-dependent transition from a low mortality pre-foraging state to a higher mortality foraging state. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.5
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