IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v25y2014i3p668-674..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cheating workers with large activated ovaries avoid risky foraging

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine M. Roth
  • Madeleine Beekman
  • Michael H. Allsopp
  • Frances Goudie
  • Theresa C. Wossler
  • Benjamin P. Oldroyd

Abstract

Eusocial insects undoubtedly evolved from solitary ancestors, but how this occurred is not well established. The Ground Plan hypothesis suggests that gene networks that once regulated the oviposition and foraging phases of an ancestral solitary insect’s life cycle have been co-opted to establish the queen–worker dimorphism in extant eusocial insects; queens permanently express genes that were once expressed during the oviposition phase, whereas workers express genes that were once associated with foraging. An extension of the Ground Plan hypothesis, the Reproductive Ground Plan-forager hypothesis, proposes that foraging specialization by worker honey bees for either pollen or nectar is controlled by the same reproductive gene networks. According to the Reproductive Ground Plan-forager hypothesis, workers with more ovarioles forage early in life and specialize in pollen collection. Here we find that among workers of a highly reproductive honey bee subspecies, Apis mellifera capensis, there is a positive correlation between ovariole number and age at onset of foraging, and no association between ovariole number and foraging preference, thus contradicting key aspects of the Reproductive Ground Plan-forager hypothesis. We also find a negative association between ovariole number and ovary activation, suggesting that high ovariole number is not directly related to reproductive potential as previously assumed.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine M. Roth & Madeleine Beekman & Michael H. Allsopp & Frances Goudie & Theresa C. Wossler & Benjamin P. Oldroyd, 2014. "Cheating workers with large activated ovaries avoid risky foraging," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(3), pages 668-674.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:25:y:2014:i:3:p:668-674.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:25:y:2014:i:3:p:668-674.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.