Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 1–5 | Cite as

Larger laboratory colonies consume proportionally less energy and have lower per capita brood production in Temnothorax ants

Research Article

Abstract

Colony size can affect individual- and colony-level behavioral and physiological traits in social insects. Changes in behavior and physiology in response to colony growth and development can affect productivity and fitness. Here, we used respirometry to study the relationship between colony size and colony energy consumption in Temnothorax rugatulus ants. In addition, we examined the relationship between colony size and worker productivity measured as per capita brood production. We found that colony metabolic rate scales with colony size to the 0.78 power and the number of brood scales with the number of workers to the 0.49 power. These regression analyses reveal that larger ant colonies use proportionally less energy and produce fewer brood per worker. Our findings provide new information on the relationships between colony size and energetic efficiency and productivity in a model ant genus. We discuss the potential mechanisms giving rise to allometric scaling of metabolic rate in ant colonies and the influence of colony size on energy consumption and productivity in general.

Keywords

Metabolic scaling Colony productivity Colony size Ants Temnothorax 

References

  1. Anderson C. and McShea D.W. 2001. Individual versus social comple-xity, with particular reference to ant colonies. Biol. Rev. 76: 211-237.Google Scholar
  2. Arcila A.M., Ulloa-Chacon P. and Gomez L.A. 2002. Factors that influence individual fecundity of queens and queen production in crazy ant Paratrechina fulva (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 39: 323-334.Google Scholar
  3. Blanchard G.B., Orledge G.M., Reynolds S.E. and Franks N.R. 2000. Division of labour and seasonality in the ant Leptothorax albi-pennis: worker corpulence and its influence on behaviour. Anim. Behav. 59: 723-738.Google Scholar
  4. Bourke A.F.G. 1999. Colony size, social complexity and reproductive conflict in social insects. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 245-257.Google Scholar
  5. Bruce A.I. and Burd M. 2012. Allometric scaling of foraging rate with trail dimensions in leaf-cutting ants. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 279: 2442-2447.Google Scholar
  6. Cao T.T. and Dornhaus A. 2008. Ants under crowded conditions consume more energy. Biol. Lett. 4: 613-615.Google Scholar
  7. Chown S.L., Marais E., Terblanche J.S., Klok C.J., Lighton J.R.B. and Blackburn T.M. 2007. Scaling of insect metabolic rate is incon-sistent with the nutrient supply network model. Funct. Ecol. 21: 282-290.Google Scholar
  8. Fewell J.H., Harrison J.F., Lighton J.R.B. and Breed M.D. 1996. Foraging energetics of the ant, Paraponera clavata. Oecologia 105: 419-427.Google Scholar
  9. Gautrais J., Theraulaz G., Deneubourg J.L. and Anderson C. 2002. Emergent polyethism as a consequence of increased colony size in insect societies. J. Theor. Biol. 215: 363-373.Google Scholar
  10. Hamilton W.D. 1964. Genetic evolution of social behaviour I. J. Theor. Biol. 7: 1-16.Google Scholar
  11. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Hou C., Kaspari M., Zanden H.B.V. and Gillooly J.F. 2010. Energetic basis of colonial living in social insects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107: 3634-3638.Google Scholar
  13. Hurlbert A.H., Ballantyne F. and Powell S. 2008. Shaking a leg and hot to trot: the effects of body size and temperature on running speed in ants. Ecol. Entomol. 33: 144-154.Google Scholar
  14. Jayatilaka P., Narendra A., Reid S.F., Cooper P. and Zeil J. 2011. Different effects of temperature on foraging activity schedules in sympatric Myrmecia ants. J. Exp. Biol. 214: 2730-2738.Google Scholar
  15. Jun J., Pepper J.W., Savage V.M., Gillooly J.F. and Brown J.H. 2003. Allometric scaling of ant foraging trail networks. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 297-303.Google Scholar
  16. Karsai I. and Wenzel J.W. 1998. Productivity, individual-level and colony-level flexibility, and organization of work as consequen-ces of colony size. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95: 8665-8669.Google Scholar
  17. Lighton J.R.B., Bartholomew G.A. and Feener D.H. 1987. Energetics of locomotion and load carriage and a model of the energy-cost of foraging in the leaf-cutting ant Atta colombica Guer. Physiol. Zool. 60: 524-537.Google Scholar
  18. Lighton J.R.B. 1991. Measurements on insects. In: Concise Encyclopedia on Biological and Biomedical Measurement Systems (Payne C.A., Ed). Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp 201-208.Google Scholar
  19. Mailleux A.C., Deneubourg J.L. and Detrain C. 2003. How does colony growth influence communication in ants? Insect. Soc. 50: 24-31.Google Scholar
  20. Michener C.D. 1964. Reproductive efficiency in relation to colony size in Hymenopterous societies. Insect. Soc. 11: 317-341.Google Scholar
  21. Naug D. and Wenzel J. 2006. Constraints on foraging success due to resource ecology limit colony productivity in social insects. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60: 62-68.Google Scholar
  22. Oster G.F. and Wilson E.O. 1978. Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Porter S.D. and Tschinkel W.R. 1985. Fire ant polymorphism—the ergonomics of brood production. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 16: 323-336.Google Scholar
  24. Pratt S.C. 2005. Quorum sensing by encounter rates in the ant Temno-thorax albipennis. Behav. Ecol. 16: 488-496.Google Scholar
  25. Robinson E.J.H., Feinerman O. and Franks N.R. 2009. Flexible task allocation and the organization of work in ants. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276: 4373-4380.Google Scholar
  26. Robinson E.J.H., Franks N.R., Ellis S., Okuda S. and Marshall J.A.R. 2011. A simple threshold rule is sufficient to explain sophisticated collective decision-making. PLoS One 6: doi:e1998110.1371/journal.pone.0019981.
  27. Schrempf A., Cremer S. and Heinze J. 2011. Social influence on age and reproduction: reduced lifespan and fecundity in multi-queen ant colonies. J. Evol. Biol. 24: 1455-1461.Google Scholar
  28. Smith C.R. and Tschinkel W.R. 2006. The sociometry and sociogenesis of reproduction in the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. J Insect Sci. 6: 1-11.Google Scholar
  29. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry. W.H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Takahashi-Del-Bianco M., Hebling M.J.A. and Bueno O.C. 1998. Respiratory metabolism of Camponotus rufipes ants: brood and adults. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A-Mol. Integr. Physiol. 119: 529-532.Google Scholar
  31. Thomas M.L. 2003. Seasonality and colony-size effects on the life-history characteristics of Rhytidoponera metallica in temperate south-eastern Australia. Aust. J. Zool. 51: 551-567.Google Scholar
  32. Tschinkel W.R. 1993. Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta during one annual cycle. Ecol. Monogr. 63: 425-457.Google Scholar
  33. Tschinkel W.R. 1998. Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius: worker characteristics in relation to colony size and season. Insect. Soc. 45: 385-410.Google Scholar
  34. Vogt J.T. and Appel A.G. 1999. Standard metabolic rate of the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren: effects of temperature, mass, and caste. J. Insect Physiol. 45: 655-666.Google Scholar
  35. Waters J.S., Holbrook C.T., Fewell J.H. and Harrison J.F. 2010. Allometric scaling of metabolism, growth, and activity in whole colonies of the seed-harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Am. Nat. 176: 501-510.Google Scholar
  36. West G.B., Brown J.H. and Enquist B.J. 1997. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276: 122-126.Google Scholar
  37. West G.B., Woodruff W.H. and Brown J.H. 2002. Allometric scaling of metabolic rate from molecules and mitochondria to cells and mammals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99: 2473-2478.Google Scholar
  38. Wheeler W.M. 1911. The ant-colony as an organism. J. Morphol. 22: 307-325.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations