2013
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.091892
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intraspecific variation in flight metabolic rate in the bumblebeeBombus impatiens: repeatability and functional determinants in workers and drones

Abstract: The evolution of flight energetics requires that phenotypes be variable, repeatable and heritable. We studied intraspecific variation in flight energetics in order to assess the repeatability of flight metabolic rate and wingbeat frequency, as well as the functional basis of phenotypic variation in workers and drones of the bumblebee species Bombus impatiens. We showed that flight metabolic rate and wingbeat frequency were highly repeatable in workers, even when controlling for body mass variation using residu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
37
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
3
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Drosophila flies (de Carvalho and Mirth, 2017) and Helio virescens caterpillars (Telang et al, 2001), (2) protein is important for somatic growth and survival (Lee, 2007; Povey et al, 2009; Roulston and Cane, 2002; Tasei and Aupinel, 2008), (3) bees primarily receive their protein (and lipid) requirements from pollen (Vaudo et al, 2016), and (4) larval bees feed primarily on pollen (Muth et al, 2016). Although adult workers of social bees have also been shown to prioritise carbohydrate over protein, their need for protein is relatively low (Paoli et al, 2014b; Stabler et al, 2015), requiring large amounts of carbohydrate to fuel flight (Darveau et al, 2014) and their high metabolism (Harrison and Roberts, 2000). Considering that growth is concentrated in the larval stage, it would seem reasonable to expect that protein acquisition would drive nutritional decisions in larval bees, even if not adults.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Drosophila flies (de Carvalho and Mirth, 2017) and Helio virescens caterpillars (Telang et al, 2001), (2) protein is important for somatic growth and survival (Lee, 2007; Povey et al, 2009; Roulston and Cane, 2002; Tasei and Aupinel, 2008), (3) bees primarily receive their protein (and lipid) requirements from pollen (Vaudo et al, 2016), and (4) larval bees feed primarily on pollen (Muth et al, 2016). Although adult workers of social bees have also been shown to prioritise carbohydrate over protein, their need for protein is relatively low (Paoli et al, 2014b; Stabler et al, 2015), requiring large amounts of carbohydrate to fuel flight (Darveau et al, 2014) and their high metabolism (Harrison and Roberts, 2000). Considering that growth is concentrated in the larval stage, it would seem reasonable to expect that protein acquisition would drive nutritional decisions in larval bees, even if not adults.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This difference in mobility could translate into sex differences in the average distance moved between flowers, the diversity of floral resources encountered, and patch retention times, all of which could influence the quantity and quality of pollen transfer. Indeed, male bumble bees appear to be 'built' for extensive flight, as their relatively larger wings per body size and slower wing-beat frequencies allow them to fly more efficiently than workers (Darveau, Billardon, & Belanger, 2014). (Pascarella, 2010), and Bombus impatiens drones move between flower patches more frequently than females (Ostevik et al, 2010).…”
Section: S E X D Ifferen Ce S In Mate S E Archingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most recently, several studies in the Journal of Experimental Biology have illustrated how these methods can also be used to estimate the repeatability of physiological and performance-related traits and gain important insight into their ecological and evolutionary implications (e.g. Laming et al, 2013;Darveau et al, 2014;Auer et al, 2016;Conradsen et al, 2016).…”
Section: Measuring Repeatabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%