Abstract
Sex investment ratios in populations of bumblebees are male biased, which contradicts theoretical predictions. Male-biased investment ratios in eusocial Hymenoptera are assumed to be non-stable for both the queen and her workers. In this paper, we show that male-biased sex allocation does not necessarily decrease fitness in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. A male-biased investment ratio can be the result of an optimal allocation of resources when resources are scarce if (i) there is a large cost difference between male and female production, (ii) there is uncertainty about the amount of resources a colony can invest, and (iii) only a proportion of the investment made in an individual can be reused. This resource allocation then leads to split sex ratios depending on the amount of resources available to a bumblebee colony: colonies under low resource conditions will show a male-biased investment ratio, whereas colonies under high resource conditions allocate more resources towards females. However, the extent to which bumblebee populations show a male-biased sex allocation cannot be explained by cost differences between male and female production alone. In a recent paper, A. F. G. Bourke argued that male-biased investment ratios in bumblebee populations are a by-product of the occurrence of protandry (males emerge before females). Here we will extend Bourke's argument and show that within a protandrous population, both protandrous and protogynous (females emerge before males) colonies exist. The existence of protandrous and protogynous colonies results in split sex ratios in time, because protogynous colonies rely on males produced by protandrous colonies (partial protandry).
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (236.9 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Estoup A., Scholl A., Pouvreau A., Solignac M. Monoandry and polyandry in bumble bees (Hymenoptera; Bombinae) as evidenced by highly variable microsatellites. Mol Ecol. 1995 Feb;4(1):89–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1995.tb00195.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):17–52. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nonacs P., Carlin N. F. When can ants discriminate the sex of brood? A new aspect of queen-worker conflict. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Dec 15;87(24):9670–9673. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.24.9670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- doi: 10.1098/rstb.1997.0179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
- Trivers R. L., Hare H. Haploidploidy and the evolution of the social insect. Science. 1976 Jan 23;191(4224):249–263. doi: 10.1126/science.1108197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]