Oecologia

, Volume 66, Issue 4, pp 484–494

A comparison of the energy budgets of three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

  • William P. MacKay
Article

Summary

This investigation compares the energy budgets of three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants along an altitudinal transect in southern California. All three demonstrate similar seasonal patterns, with high foraging activity and high respiratory costs in mid-summer and little or no activity during winter. Respiration, predominantely metabolism of the workers, was estimated to account for 84–92% of the energy assimilated by the nests. The remaining 8–16% of the energy was invested in the production of new individuals. However, total production was not correlated with food input. It is suggested that worker care of the brood may be the most important determinant of brood production, and thus food may not be a direct limiting resource in harvester ants.

A higher percentage of production is invested in workers than in reproductives in all three species. The species usually partition similar proportions of energy between the production of males and females, but since females are larger, more males are produced. Although the species are in different habitats and have very different numbers of workers per nest, the numbers of sexuals produced per nest are similar. The sex-ratio appears to be ecologically determined. Nests that were provided with additional food invested more energy in the production of males. Control nests, nests which had food removed and older nests invested more in the production of females or invested equally in the production of the two sexes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brian MV (1967) Production by social insects. Proceedings of the International Biological Program Symposium on Secondary Productivity of Terrestrial Ecosystems, K. Petrusewicz (ed) pp 835–839Google Scholar
  2. Golley FB, Gentry JB (1964) Bionergetics of the southern harvester ant. Pogonomyrmex badius. Ecology 45:217–225Google Scholar
  3. Horn-Mrozowska E (1976) Energy budget elements of an experimental nest of Formica pratensis Retzius 1783 (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Polish Ecological Studies 2:55–93Google Scholar
  4. Horstmann K (1982) Die Energiebilanz der Waldameisen (Formica polyctena Förster) in einem Eichenwald. Insectes Sociaux 29:402–421Google Scholar
  5. Humphreys WF (1979) Production and respiration in animal populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 48:427–453Google Scholar
  6. Jensen TF (1978) An energy budget for a field population of Formica pratensis Retz. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Natura Jutlandica 20:203–226Google Scholar
  7. Kajak A, Breymeyer A, Petal J, Olechowicz E (1972) The influence of ants on the meadow invertebrates. Ekologia Polska 20:163–171Google Scholar
  8. Litchfield G (1972) Analysis of Triglycerids. Academic Press xvii +355 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. MacKay WP (1981a) A comparison of the nest phenologies of three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche. 88:25–74Google Scholar
  10. MacKay WP (1981b) A comparison of the ecological energetics of three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Dissertation, University of California, RiversideGoogle Scholar
  11. MacKay WP (1982) An altitudinal comparison of oxygen consumption rates in three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Physiological Zoology 55:367–377Google Scholar
  12. MacKay WP (1984) Why do harvester ants store seeds in their nets? Sociobiology 9:31–47Google Scholar
  13. MacKay WP, Sassaman C (1984) Paradoxical acclimation and seasonal comparisons of oxygen consumption rates in three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 154:399–407Google Scholar
  14. McNeill S, Lawton JH (1970) Annual production and respiration in animal populations. Nature 225:472–474Google Scholar
  15. Myers JH (1978) Sex ratio adjustment under food stress: maximization of quality or numbers of offspring? American Naturalist 112:381–388Google Scholar
  16. Nielsen MG (1972) An attempt to estimate energy flow through a population of workers of Lasius alienus (Forst) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Natura Jutlandica 16:99–107Google Scholar
  17. Oster G, Wilson EO (1978) Casts and Ecology in the Social Insects. Princeton University Press. xv+352 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Petal J (1967) Productivity and the consumption of food in the Myrmica laevinodis Nyl. population. In Secondary Productivity of Terrestrial Ecosystems. K. Petrusewicz ed. Warsaw Poland, pp 841–858Google Scholar
  19. Petal J (1977) The effect of food supply and intraspecific competition in an ant population. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of the International Union for the Study of Social Insects. pp 60–61Google Scholar
  20. Quinlan RJ, Cherrett JM (1979) The role of fungus in the diet of the leaf-cutting ant Atta cephalotes L. Ecological Entomology 4:151–160Google Scholar
  21. Rogers L, Lavigne R, Miller JL (1972) Bioenergetics of the western harvester ant in the shortgrass plains ecosystem. Environmental Entomology 1:763–768Google Scholar
  22. Schowalter TD, Whitford WG, Turner RB (1977) Bioenergetics of the range caterpillar Hemileuca oliviae (Ckll). Oecologia (Berlin) 28:153–161Google Scholar
  23. Snedecor GW, Cochran WC (1967) Statistical Methods. 6th edition. Iowa State University Press. xiv+593 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Trivers RL, Hare H (1976) Haplodiploidy and the evolution of the social insects. Science 191:249–263Google Scholar
  25. Trivers RL, Willard DE (1973) Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science 179:90–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • William P. MacKay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations