DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Altruism, Eusociality and the Superorganism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Altruism, Eusociality and the Superorganism BIOLOGICAL ALTRUISM, EUSOCIALITY AND THE SUPERORGANISM A critical analysis of the role of biological altruism within eusociality research Mark Caine (cc)2020 MARK CAINE (cc by-nc-sa 4.0) INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Thesis objectives and methods ..................................................................................................................... 7 Overview of chapters .................................................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 1 — ALTRUISM AND EUSOCIAL INSECTS: A BRIEF HISTORY ............................................................ 18 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 18 1.1. ALTRUISM, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ...................................................................................................... 20 1.1.1. Altruism ............................................................................................................................................ 20 1.1.2. Biological altruism ............................................................................................................................ 21 1.1.3. The BA paradox and the levels of selection debate .......................................................................... 24 1.2. HAMILTON, EUSOCIALITY AND THE CONCEPT OF BA .............................................................................................. 30 1.2.1. Why did Hamilton apply kin selection to eusociality? ...................................................................... 31 1.2.2. Why did Hamilton apply BA to eusociality? ...................................................................................... 38 1.2.3. BA in pre-Hamiltonian eusociality research ...................................................................................... 43 1.2.4. BA in post-Hamiltonian eusociality research .................................................................................... 47 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 2 — BIOLOGICAL ALTRUISM: HISTORY JUSTIFIED BY THEORY JUSTIFIED BY HISTORY ..................... 58 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 58 2.1. DID DARWIN DISCUSS AND/OR DEVELOP THE CONCEPT OF BA? .............................................................................. 60 2.1.1. Did Darwin discuss BA in the Descent of Man? ................................................................................ 63 2.1.2. Darwin’s “special difficulty” with eusociality .................................................................................... 68 2.1.3. Why did claims (2) and (3) emerge? ................................................................................................. 72 2.2. DARWIN AND EUSOCIALITY: GROUP SELECTION, KIN SELECTION, OR SOMETHING ELSE? ................................................ 77 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 86 CHAPTER 3 — EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF EUSOCIALITY: IS BA FUNDAMENTAL? ...................................... 91 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 91 3.1. BIOLOGICAL ALTRUISM: DEFINITIONAL ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 93 3.1.1. Absolute and relative (or weak and strong) definitions .................................................................... 96 3.1.2. A case for an additional clause ....................................................................................................... 100 3.1.3. Biological altruism: a proposed definition ...................................................................................... 103 3.2. THE EVOLUTION OF EUSOCIALITY .................................................................................................................... 104 3.2.1. Kin selection: BA and parental manipulation (coercion) ................................................................ 105 3.2.2. Group selection: MLS1 and MLS2 ................................................................................................... 117 3.2.3. Evolution of eusociality: a summary ............................................................................................... 121 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 124 CHAPTER 4 — THE SUPERORGANISM: FROM THE PAST TO THE PRESENT ................................................... 129 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 129 4.1. THE SUPERORGANISM: FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL TO AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE ................................................. 131 4.1.1. The superorganism of old ............................................................................................................... 131 4.1.2. The decline of the superorganism .................................................................................................. 136 4.1.3. Complex eusociality ........................................................................................................................ 138 4.1.4. The revival of the superorganism ................................................................................................... 141 4.2. THE SELF-ORGANIZATION APPROACH TO COMPLEX EUSOCIALITY ............................................................................ 147 4.2.1. The problem of hierarchy ............................................................................................................... 147 4.2.2. The self-organization approach ...................................................................................................... 150 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 154 CHAPTER 5 — REVISING THE SUPERORGANISM: THE HIERARCHICAL-ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH TO COMPLEX EUSOCIALITY .............................................................................................................................. 158 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 158 5.1. THE HIERARCHICAL-ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH ............................................................................................... 160 5.1.1. The social physiology approach ...................................................................................................... 161 5.1.2. The hierarchical-organizational approach ...................................................................................... 163 1 5.2. THE APPLICATION OF THE HO APPROACH TO THREE REPRESENTATIVE CASE STUDIES OF SPECIES FROM ACROSS THE EUSOCIAL COMPLEXITY SPECTRUM ....................................................................................................................................... 168 5.2.1. Facultative eusocial bees, Megalopta genalis ................................................................................ 168 5.2.2. The common wasp, Vespula vulgaris ............................................................................................. 172 5.2.3. Honey bees, Apis mellifera ............................................................................................................. 177 5.3. COMPARISON OF COLONY LEVEL INDIVIDUALITY IN THREE EUSOCIAL INSECT SPECIES .................................................. 194 5.4. THE CONCEPT OF BA AND THE SUPERORGANISM ................................................................................................ 197 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 199 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 204 Has the widespread use of the concept of BA been problematic for eusociality research? ..................... 206 Is the concept of BA a correct description of the behaviour of the non-reproductive castes in eusocial insect colonies? ......................................................................................................................................... 208 Eusociality without BA? Implications of the thesis ................................................................................... 210 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................... 212 2 Introduction Today the concept of biological altruism (BA) is widely used within biological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sensory and Cognitive Adaptations to Social Living in Insect Societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S
    COMMENTARY COMMENTARY Sensory and cognitive adaptations to social living in insect societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S. van Zwedena A key question in evolutionary biology is to explain the solitarily or form small annual colonies, depending upon causes and consequences of the so-called “major their environment (9). And one species, Lasioglossum transitions in evolution,” which resulted in the pro- marginatum, is even known to form large perennial euso- gressive evolution of cells, organisms, and animal so- cial colonies of over 400 workers (9). By comparing data cieties (1–3). Several studies, for example, have now from over 30 Halictine bees with contrasting levels of aimed to determine which suite of adaptive changes sociality, Wittwer et al. (7) now show that, as expected, occurred following the evolution of sociality in insects social sweat bee species invest more in sensorial machin- (4). In this context, a long-standing hypothesis is that ery linked to chemical communication, as measured by the evolution of the spectacular sociality seen in in- the density of their antennal sensillae, compared with sects, such as ants, bees, or wasps, should have gone species that secondarily reverted back to a solitary life- hand in hand with the evolution of more complex style. In fact, the same pattern even held for the socially chemical communication systems, to allow them to polymorphic species L. albipes if different populations coordinate their complex social behavior (5). Indeed, with contrasting levels of sociality were compared (Fig. whereas solitary insects are known to use pheromone 1, Inset). This finding suggests that the increased reliance signals mainly in the context of mate attraction and on chemical communication that comes with a social species-recognition, social insects use chemical sig- lifestyle indeed selects for fast, matching adaptations in nals in a wide variety of contexts: to communicate their sensory systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare and the Paradox of Animal Consciousness
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Animal Welfare and the Paradox of Animal Consciousness Marian Dawkins1 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 1Corresponding author: e-mail address: [email protected] Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Animal Consciousness: The Heart of the Paradox 2 2.1 Behaviorism Applies to Other People Too 5 3. Human Emotions and Animals Emotions 7 3.1 Physiological Indicators of Emotion 7 3.2 Behavioral Components of Emotion 8 3.2.1 Vacuum Behavior 10 3.2.2 Rebound 10 3.2.3 “Abnormal” Behavior 10 3.2.4 The Animal’s Point of View 11 3.2.5 Cognitive Bias 15 3.2.6 Expressions of the Emotions 15 3.3 The Third Component of Emotion: Consciousness 16 4. Definitions of Animal Welfare 24 5. Conclusions 26 References 27 1. INTRODUCTION Consciousness has always been both central to and a stumbling block for animal welfare. On the one hand, the belief that nonhuman animals suffer and feel pain is what draws many people to want to study animal welfare in the first place. Animal welfare is seen as fundamentally different from plant “welfare” or the welfare of works of art precisely because of the widely held belief that animals have feelings and experience emotions in ways that plants or inanimate objectsdhowever valuableddo not (Midgley, 1983; Regan, 1984; Rollin, 1989; Singer, 1975). On the other hand, consciousness is also the most elusive and difficult to study of any biological phenomenon (Blackmore, 2012; Koch, 2004). Even with our own human consciousness, we are still baffled as to how Advances in the Study of Behavior, Volume 47 ISSN 0065-3454 © 2014 Elsevier Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Societies As Divided Organisms: the Complexities of Purpose and Cross-Purpose
    Insect societies as divided organisms: The complexities of purpose and cross-purpose Joan E. Strassmann* and David C. Queller Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005 Individual organisms are complex in a special way. The organiza- explained aspects of biology that were nonadaptive conse- tion and function of their parts seem directed toward a purpose: quences of history, from vestigial organs and other homologies the survival and reproduction of that individual. Groups of organ- to biogeographical patterns. Our understanding that organisms isms are different. They may also be complex, but that is usually are a mix of historical constraint and adaptation by natural because their parts, the individual organisms, are working at selection has led to many successful predictions about the natural cross-purposes. The most obvious exception to this rule is the social world, whereas Paley’s theory stands mute about the details. In insects. Here, the individuals cooperate in complex ways toward other words, Darwin’s theory is much richer than a simple the common goal of the success of the colony, even if it means that explanation for design; it makes many further extensions and most of them do not reproduce. Kin selection theory explains how predictions. Some of these extensions and predictions were not this can evolve. Nonreproductive individuals help in the reproduc- fully appreciated in Darwin’s time. The last several decades have tion of their kin, who share and transmit their genes. Such help is seen increased attention to a further important question about most favored when individuals can give more to their kin than they the apparent design of organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • CONFERENCE AT-A-GLANCE THURSDAY, APRIL 12 3:00 P.M
    Conference Schedule CONFERENCE AT-A-GLANCE THURSDAY, APRIL 12 3:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. The NRHC Game Night Providence Ballroom 8:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Big Picture Discussion Bristol/Kent FRIDAY, APRIL 13 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 9:00 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. City as Text Intro and Speaker Narragansett Ballroom 10:00 a.m. - 3:15 p.m. City as Text Providence 3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. City as Text Reflection Narragansett Ballroom 5:00 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. Graduate and Transfer Fair Waterplace Ballroom 6:00 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. Student Art Show Waterplace Ballroom 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Banquet Narragansett Ballroom 9:30 p.m. - midnight Open Mic Night Narragansett Ballroom SATURDAY, APRIL 14 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast Narragansett Ballroom 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Poster Session I Narragansett Ballroom 7:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 9:05 a.m. - 10:20 a.m. Session I Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 10:35 a.m. - 11:50 a.m. Session II Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Presidential Lunch and Address Narragansett Ballroom 1:40 p.m. - 2:55 p.m. Session III Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 3:10 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Design Experiments in Animal Behaviour∗ 8
    SERIES ARTICLE How to Design Experiments in Animal Behaviour∗ 8. How Do Wasps Decide Who Would Be the Queen? Part 2 Raghavendra Gadagkar Continuing to explore the fascinating world of the Indian pa- per wasp Ropalidia marginata, in this article, we will ask how wasps choose their queens in another context. In the previ- ous article in this series, we saw how a simple experiment re- vealed that wasps fight, i.e., indulge in dominance-subordinate interactions, and the winner becomes the queen and the loser becomes the worker. This was in the context of new nestfoundation. But contextmatters. Whenthe same wasps once again have to decide who will be their next queen Raghavendra Gadagkar is if the first one dies or is experimentally removed, the same DST Year of Science Chair Professor at the Centre for rules do not hold. The wasps in a mature colony continue Ecological Sciences, Indian to show dominance-subordinate interactions and can even be Institute of Science, arranged in a dominance hierarchy, but the dominance ranks Bangalore, Honorary of the wasps do not predict who their next queen will be. Professor at JNCASR, and Non-Resident Permanent How they choose their next queen in this context continues Fellow of the to be an enduring mystery. In this article, I will describe four Wissenschaftskolleg (Institute simple experiments that have helped us come close to nail- for Advanced Study), Berlin. ing the culprit, although I must confess that we have not yet During the past 40 years he has established an active found the smoking gun—the chase is on, and we are hot on school of research in the area the trail—please join in! of animal behaviour, ecology and evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Behave in a Beehive Eusociality, What Is It? the Colony
    1/6-2017 How to behave in a beehive Krisztina Csiki Popular scientific review of Independent Project in Biology 2017 Biology Education Centre, Uppsala University Did you know that the European honeybee has other interesting properties besides producing honey? It is a widely studied insect today, but the fascination goes back to the19th century and Sir Charles Darwin. So what is this fascination about? They have a strange genetic makeup which is very different from ours. How can a female be more related to her sister than to her offspring, and why are some individuals sterile? Moreover, some bees seem to work every waking hour while others spend their time doing practically nothing! Eusociality, what is it? Honeybees are social animals. However, their social system is organized in a different fashion than ours. Eusociality is in fact the most advanced social system known in the animal kingdom! What makes it special is that it is made up of large colonies where the tasks of guarding, nursing, foraging and reproducing are divided amongst its members. Individuals are usually born into performing particular tasks and are unable to change this. Moreover, at least some members in these systems are sterile, and others help the reproducers to nurse offspring. Many theories have tried to explaining this behaviour. They all hope to answer the question why sterile individuals have evolved. The most famous theory is called kin selection, which is a modification of Darwin’s theory. It suggests that the gene - rather than the individual itself - is the fundamental unit of selection. It is thus the gene that “wants” to survive.
    [Show full text]
  • Plasticity‐Led Evolution: a Survey of Developmental Mechanisms and Empirical Tests
    DOI: 10.1111/ede.12309 PERSPECTIVE Plasticity‐led evolution: A survey of developmental mechanisms and empirical tests Nicholas A. Levis | David W. Pfennig Department of Biology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Abstract North Carolina Recent years have witnessed increased interest in evaluating whether phenotypic plasticity can precede, facilitate, and possibly even bias adaptive Correspondence “ ‐ ” Nicholas A. Levis, Department of Biology, evolution. Despite accumulating evidence for plasticity led evolution (i.e., CB#3280, University of North Carolina, “PLE”), critical gaps remain, such as: how different developmental Chapel Hill, NC 27599. mechanisms influence PLE; whether some types of traits and taxa are Email: [email protected] especially prone to experience PLE; and what studies are needed to drive the field forward. Here, we begin to address these shortcomings by first speculating about how various features of development—modularity, flexible regulation, and exploratory mechanisms—mightimpactand/orbias whether and how PLE unfolds. We then review and categorize the traits and taxa used to investigate PLE. We do so both to identify systems that may be well‐suited for studying developmental mechanisms in a PLE context and to highlight any mismatches between PLE theory and existing empirical tests of this theory. We conclude by providing additional suggestions for future research. Our overarching goal is to stimulate additional work on PLE and thereby evaluate plasticity’s role in evolution. 1 | INTRODUCTION 2011; West‐Eberhard, 2003). Under this view, novel traits start out evolutionarily as environmentally The environment has long been viewed as crucial in induced phenotypic variants. Later, they come under both selecting on phenotypes and in creating those genetic control through selection on developmental phenotypes in the first place (e.g., Baldwin, 1896, processes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Survival and Apparent Resurgence of Sociobiology
    This is a repository copy of The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/118157/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Dennis, A. orcid.org/0000-0003-4625-1123 (2018) The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. History of the Human Sciences, 31 (1). pp. 19-35. ISSN 0952- 6951 https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117735966 Dennis A. The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. History of the Human Sciences. 2018;31(1):19-35. Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117735966. Article available under the terms of the CC- BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology Abstract A recent dispute between Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson concerning fundamental concepts in sociobiology is examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Gene-Culture Coevolution, Group Selection, and the Evolution of Cooperation
    EC_2018_A12 Gene-Culture coevolution, group selection, and the evolution of Cooperation The Evolution of Cooperation How can altruism / cooperation evolve? 1 EC_2018_A12 Levels of Selection "although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe (...) an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.” (C. Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871) Levels of Selection Individuals (“basic” [Neo]Darwinism) Genes (“Selfish-gene” Sociobiology) Groups? Multilevel selection? Higher-level adaptations? Genetic Group Selection? “Naïve group selectionism”: The probability of survival of individual living things, or of populations, increases with the degree with which they harmoniously adjust themselves to each other and to their environment. This principle is basic to the concept of the balance of nature, orders the subject matter of ecology and evolution, underlies organismic and developmental biology, and is the foundation for all sociology. (Allee et al. 1949) “The good of the species” (Wynne-Edwards) 2 EC_2018_A12 Levels of Selection Migration, genetic drift, etc: Intergroup effects weaker than intragroup, interindividual selection. Intra x intergroup differences X Wilson DS & Wilson EO (2007) Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology Multi-level selection/ limits in kin selection theory/ “major transitions” Eusociality: Kin Selection X Individual selection + preadaptations. (communal nests) Nowak, Tarnita & Wilson, “The Evolution of Eusociality”, Nature 2010 (X Abbot et al [+100!], Nature 2011) “Major Transitions” in Evolution Maynard Smith & Szathmáry 1997 “Apart from the evolution of the genetic code, all these transitions involve the coming together of previously independent replicators, to cooperate in a higher-level assembly that reproduces as a single unit.” 3 EC_2018_A12 Natural selection & the evolution of cooperation Cooperation is needed for evolution to construct new levels of organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Methods Offer Powerful Insights Into Social Evolution in Bees Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton
    Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton To cite this version: Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton. Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees. Apidologie, Springer Verlag, 2014, 45 (3), pp.289-305. 10.1007/s13592-014-0268-3. hal- 01234748 HAL Id: hal-01234748 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01234748 Submitted on 27 Nov 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Apidologie (2014) 45:289–305 Review article * INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France, 2014 DOI: 10.1007/s13592-014-0268-3 Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees 1 2 Sarah D. KOCHER , Robert J. PAXTON 1Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA 2Institute for Biology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany Received 9 September 2013 – Revised 8 December 2013 – Accepted 2 January 2014 Abstract – Bees are excellent models for studying the evolution of sociality. While most species are solitary, many form social groups. The most complex form of social behavior, eusociality, has arisen independently four times within the bees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Functions and Evolution of Social Fluid Exchange in Ant Colonies (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Marie-Pierre Meurville & Adria C
    ISSN 1997-3500 Myrmecological News myrmecologicalnews.org Myrmecol. News 31: 1-30 doi: 10.25849/myrmecol.news_031:001 13 January 2021 Review Article Trophallaxis: the functions and evolution of social fluid exchange in ant colonies (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Marie-Pierre Meurville & Adria C. LeBoeuf Abstract Trophallaxis is a complex social fluid exchange emblematic of social insects and of ants in particular. Trophallaxis behaviors are present in approximately half of all ant genera, distributed over 11 subfamilies. Across biological life, intra- and inter-species exchanged fluids tend to occur in only the most fitness-relevant behavioral contexts, typically transmitting endogenously produced molecules adapted to exert influence on the receiver’s physiology or behavior. Despite this, many aspects of trophallaxis remain poorly understood, such as the prevalence of the different forms of trophallaxis, the components transmitted, their roles in colony physiology and how these behaviors have evolved. With this review, we define the forms of trophallaxis observed in ants and bring together current knowledge on the mechanics of trophallaxis, the contents of the fluids transmitted, the contexts in which trophallaxis occurs and the roles these behaviors play in colony life. We identify six contexts where trophallaxis occurs: nourishment, short- and long-term decision making, immune defense, social maintenance, aggression, and inoculation and maintenance of the gut microbiota. Though many ideas have been put forth on the evolution of trophallaxis, our analyses support the idea that stomodeal trophallaxis has become a fixed aspect of colony life primarily in species that drink liquid food and, further, that the adoption of this behavior was key for some lineages in establishing ecological dominance.
    [Show full text]
  • Apidae: Meliponini)
    J Comp Physiol A DOI 10.1007/s00359-016-1118-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Body size limits dim‑light foraging activity in stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini) Martin Streinzer1,2 · Werner Huber3 · Johannes Spaethe1,4 Received: 23 March 2016 / Revised: 28 July 2016 / Accepted: 29 July 2016 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Stingless bees constitute a species-rich tribe ocelli diameter, ommatidia number, and facet diameter. of tropical and subtropical eusocial Apidae that act as All parameters significantly correlated with body size. important pollinators for flowering plants. Many foraging A disproportionately low light intensity threshold in tasks rely on vision, e.g. spatial orientation and detection the minute Trigonisca pipioli, together with a large eye of food sources and nest entrances. Meliponini workers parameter Peye suggests specific adaptations to circumvent are usually small, which sets limits on eye morphology the optical constraints imposed by the small body size. and thus quality of vision. Limitations are expected both We discuss the implications of body size in bees on forag- on acuity, and thus on the ability to detect objects from ing behavior. a distance, as well as on sensitivity, and thus on the for- aging time window at dusk and dawn. In this study, we Keywords Meliponini · Light intensity threshold · Vision · determined light intensity thresholds for flight under dim Compound eye · Body size light conditions in eight stingless bee species in relation to body size in a Neotropical lowland rainforest. Species varied in body size (0.8–1.7 mm thorax-width), and we Introduction found a strong negative correlation with light intensity thresholds (0.1–79 lx).
    [Show full text]