Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 159–168 | Cite as

Provisioning behavior and the estimation of investment ratios in a solitary bee, Calliopsis (Hypomacrotera) persimilis (Cockerell) (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae)

  • Bryan N. Danforth
Article

Summary

One aspect of behavioral ecology that has received considerable attention, especially by students of social insects, is the relative amount of energy invested by parents in the rearing of male versus female offspring. Sexual selection theory makes predictions about how individuals should allocate their total investment in the sexes. To test these predictions we must accurately quantify the relative “cost” incurred by a parent in the production of an average individual of either sex. Body weight ratios are the most common estimate of cost ratio, but the correspondence between offspring body weight and energetic investment on the part of the parent has rarely been determined. Calliopsis (Hypomacrotera) persimilis is a solitary, ground-nesting bee whose natural history makes it particularly convenient for studies of investment patterns and foraging behavior. Each day females construct and provision from 1 to 6 cells in linear, closely-spaced series. Each cell is provisioned with pollen from Physalis Wrightii flowers, which is collected on two or three foraging trips. However, the temporal sequence in which two- and three-trip foraging bouts occur is not random. Females invariably begin each day provisioning cells with three trips worth of pollen and usually switch to provisioning the latter cells of the day with just two trips worth of pollen. The sex of the offspring within the same co-linear series of cells also varies non-randomly — female offspring predominate in the first cells of each series and male offspring in the latter cells. The correspondence between the number of foraging trips to provision a cell, the total time spent foraging, and offspring sex was determined for 36 cells. The data indicate a close, though not absolute, relationship between the number of foraging trips and the sex of the offspring: males usually received two trips of pollen, though some received three, whereas female offspring invariably received three trips worth of pollen. A number of potential estimates of the relative cost of female and male offspring production were calculated. Estimates of the cost ratio based on the amount of time spent foraging, adult dry body weight, and pollen ball dry weight all give similar values. Female offspring receive an energetic investment of from 1.3 to 1.5 times that of males. These results support the use of adult dry body weight ratios in the estimation of cost ratios.

Keywords

Social Insect Male Offspring Female Offspring Cost Ratio Offspring Production 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bohart GE, Youssef NN (1976) The biology and behavior of Evylaeus galpinsiae Cockerell (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Wasmann J Biol 34:185–234Google Scholar
  2. Boomsma JJ (1989) Sex-investment ratios in ants: has female bias been systematically overestimated? Am Nat 133:517–532Google Scholar
  3. Boomsma JJ, Isaaks JA (1985) Energy investment and respiration in queens and males of Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:19–27Google Scholar
  4. Brockmann HJ, Grafen A (1989) Mate conflict and male behaviour in a solitary wasp, Trypoxylon (Trypargilum) politum (Hymenoptera:Sphecidae). Anim Behav 37:232–255Google Scholar
  5. Buchmann SL (1986) Vibratile pollination in Solanum and Lycopersicon: a look at pollen chemistry. In: D'Arcy WG (ed) Solanaceae: biology and systematics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 237–252Google Scholar
  6. Cockerell TDA (1899) New insects from Arizona, and a new bee from New Mexico. Entomologist 33:61–66Google Scholar
  7. Cowan DP (1981) Parental investment in two solitary wasps Ancistrocerus adiabatus and Euodynerus foraminatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:95–102Google Scholar
  8. Cross EA, Mostafa A E-S, Bauman TR, Lancaster IJ (1978) Some aspects of energy transfer between the organ pipe mud-dauber Trypoxylon politum and its araneid spider prey. Environ Entomol 7:647–652Google Scholar
  9. Danforth BN (1989) Nesting behavior of four species of Perdita (Hymenoptera:Andrenidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 62:59–79Google Scholar
  10. Dow R (1942) The relationship of the prey of Sphecius speciosus to the size and sex of the adult wasp. Ann Entomol Soc Am 35:310–317Google Scholar
  11. Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection, 2nd edn. Dover, New York, pp xiv, 291Google Scholar
  12. Frohlich DR, Tepedino VJ (1986) Sex ratio, parental investment, and interparent variability in nesting success in a solitary bee. Evolution 40:142–151Google Scholar
  13. Gerber HS, Klostermeyer EC (1972) Factors affecting the sex ratio and nesting behavior of the alfalfa leafcutter bee. Wash Agric Exp Stn Tech Bull 73: 1–11Google Scholar
  14. Jayasingh DB, Taffe CA (1982) The biology of the eumenid mudwasp Pachyodynerus nasidens in trapnests. Ecol Entomol 7:283–289Google Scholar
  15. Klostermeyer EC, Mech SJ Jr, Rasmussen WB (1973) Sex and weight of Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera:Megachilidae) progeny associated with provision weights. J Kans Entomol Soc 46:536–548Google Scholar
  16. Krombein KV (1967) Trap-nesting wasps and bees: life histories, nests and associates. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp vi, 570Google Scholar
  17. Levin MD (1966) Biological notes on Osmia lignaria and Osmia californica (Hymenoptera:Apoidea, Megachilidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 39:524–535Google Scholar
  18. MacKay WP (1985) A comparison of the energy budgets of three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants (Hymenoptera:Formicidae). Oecologia (Berl) 66:484–494Google Scholar
  19. Metcalf R (1980) Sex ratios, parent-offspring conflict, and local competition for mates in the social wasps Polistes metricus and Polistes variatus. Am Nat 116:642–654Google Scholar
  20. Ordway E (1984) Aspects of the nesting behavior and nest structure of Diadasia opuntiae Ckll. (Hymenoptera:Anthophoridae). J Kans Entomol Soc 57:216–230Google Scholar
  21. Peakin GJ (1972) Aspects of productivity in Tetramorium caespitum L. Ekol Pol 20:55–63Google Scholar
  22. Plateaux-Quénu C (1983) Le volume d'un pain d'abeille influence-til le sexe de l'oeuf pondu sur lui? Etude expérimentale portant sur la premiére couvée d'Evylaeus calceatus (Scop.) (Hymenoptera, Halictidae). Ann Sci Nat Zool 5:41–52Google Scholar
  23. Plowright RC, Jay SC (1977) On the size determination of bumble bee castes (Hymenoptera:Apidae). Can J Zool 55:1133–1138Google Scholar
  24. Rozen JG Jr (1967) Review of the biology of panurgine bees, with observations on North American forms (Hymenoptera:Andrenidae). Am Mus Novit 2297:1–44Google Scholar
  25. Rozen JG Jr (1970) Biology and immature stages of the panurgine bee genera Hypomacrotera and Psaenythia (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Am Mus Novit 2416:1–16Google Scholar
  26. Rozen JG Jr (1989) Life histories of the “primitive” panurgine bees (Hymenoptera:Andrenidae:Panurginae). Am Mus Novit 2962:1–27Google Scholar
  27. Ruz L (1988) Cladistic analysis and a broader interpretation of the bee genus Calliopsis (Hymenoptera:Andrenidae). Proc Int Congress Entomol, Vancouver, British Columbia, p 53Google Scholar
  28. Tepedino VJ, Parker FD (1988) Alternation of sex ratio in a partially bivoltine bee, Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 81:467–476Google Scholar
  29. Tepedino VJ, Torchio PF (1982) Temporal variability in the sex ratio of a non-social bee, Osmia lignaria propingua: extrinsic determination or the tracking of an optimum? Oikos 38:177–182Google Scholar
  30. Tepedino VJ, Torchio PF (1989) Influence of nest hole selection on sex ratio and progeny size in Osmia lignaria propingua (Hymenoptera:Megachilidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 82:355–360Google Scholar
  31. Todd FE, Bretherick O (1942) The composition of pollens. J Econ Entomol 35:312–317Google Scholar
  32. Torchio PF, Tepedino VJ (1980) Sex ratio, body size and seasonality in solitary bee, Osmia lignaria propingua Cresson (Hymenoptera:Megachilidae). Evolution 34:993–1003Google Scholar
  33. Torchio PF, Trostle GE, Burdick DJ (1988) The nesting biology of Colletes kincaidii Cockerell (Hymenoptera:Colletidae) and development of its immature forms. Ann Entomol Soc Am 81:605–625Google Scholar
  34. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed). Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldane, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  35. Trivers RL, Hare H (1976) Haplodiploidy and the evolution of the social insects. Science 191:249–263Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryan N. Danforth
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Snow Entomological Museum, Department of EntomologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian InstitutionWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations