FORAGING EFFORT AND LIFE SPAN OF WORKERS IN A SOCIAL INSECT
FORAGING EFFORT AND LIFE SPAN OF WORKERS IN A SOCIAL INSECT
复制标题
社会性昆虫中工蚁的觅食努力和寿命
DOI：
10.2307/4921
复制
发表时间：
1988
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
T. Wolf
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Schmid;T. Wolf
（1）动物投入当前活动的努力与其预期的未来寿命之间的反比关系对于生活史特征很重要，特别是将提供觅食策略与终身适应性之间的联系。如果觅食努力减少寿命，则认为诸如蜜蜂（Apis mellifera）采蜜工蜂所采用的低成本觅食策略是适应性的（Schmid-Hempel等人，1985年）。我们在这里测试是否有觅食活动和寿命之间的反比关系。(2)每个工蜂被单独标记，随机分为5个处理组，观察工蜂的活动和寿命。处理不同的时间长度，个别蜜蜂被允许离开蜂箱内的8小时内，每天觅食（与时间表系统地改变每天）。在处理期间，0-h组的个体永远不能离开蜂巢，其他组的个体允许离开蜂巢2、4、6或8 h（即总是）。蜂巢入口处的滑动门由一名观察员操作，以确保只有合适的个体被挡在后面，而其他个体可以自由觅食。(3)各组之间的平均成虫寿命（羽化至最后一次观察）没有差异（0-h组个体：41 6 + 2-0 S.E. d，N= 49; 2小时：41-3 + 1.9，N=59; 4小时：41.9+1 8，N=57; 6小时：45.1 + 22，N=46; 8小时：39.0+2.3，N=49），尽管每个个体/治疗期的觅食旅行次数存在差异，尽管整个生命周期内旅行总数和持续时间在治疗组之间增加了三倍。两两比较，8h组工人的平均寿命短于6 h组工人。(4)然而，在群体内，寿命与每个时期的旅行次数或每个时期离开蜂巢的时间分别呈显著负相关。这种关系在很大程度上是由于辛勤工作的人。我们还发现，蜜蜂在蜂巢中不活动而不是活跃的平均时间与其寿命之间存在显著的正相关关系。我们的结论是，平均工作量低于蜜蜂在自然条件下接受的水平（如这里测试的）不会显着延长工人的寿命，但寿命可能会减少，如果蜜蜂增加他们的工作量。
SUMMARY (1) An inverse relationship between the effort an animal invests into current activities and its expected future life duration is important for life-history traits and, in particular, would provide a connection between foraging strategy and life-time fitness. Energetically low-cost foraging strategies such as those practised by nectar-collecting workers of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) are considered to be adaptive if foraging effort reduces life span (Schmid-Hempel et al. 1985). We here tested whether there is an inverse relationship between foraging activity and life span. (2) Workers of a colony were individually marked, placed at random into one of five treatment groups and their activities and life span observed. Treatments differed in the length of time individual bees were allowed to leave the hive to forage within an 8-h period each day (with schedules systematically altered from day to day). During the treatment period, individuals of the 0-h group could never leave the hive, those in other groups were allowed to exit the hive for 2, 4, 6 or 8 h (i.e. always). Sliding doors at the hive entrance were operated by an observer to ensure that only the appropriate individuals were kept back while others could forage freely. (3) There were no differences among groups in average adult life span (eclosion to last observation) (for individuals in the 0-h group: 41 6 + 2-0 S.E. days, N= 49; 2 h: 41-3 + 1.9, N=59; 4 h: 41.9+1 8, N=57; 6 h: 45.1 +22, N=46; 8-h: 39.0+2.3, N=49), despite differences in the number of foraging trips per individual/treatment period, and despite a threefold increase across treatment groups in the total number and duration of trips over the entire life span. In pairwise comparisons, average life span of workers in the 8 h group was shorter than those of workers in the 6 h group. (4) Within groups, however, there was a significant negative correlation between life span and number of trips per period, or time out of the hive per period, respectively. This relationship was largely due to hard-working individuals. We also found a significant positive correlation between the average amount of time a bee spent inactive in the hive, rather than being active, and its life span. We conclude that a reduction in the average work load below what bees accept under natural conditions (such as tested here) would not significantly lengthen life span of workers, but that life span might be reduced if bees increased their work load.