The body size of the oil-collecting bee Tetrapedia diversipes (Apidae)

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The body size of bees can affect their fitness in many ways. There is an indirect relationship between the size of the mother and the size of her progeny. This is so because large mothers use larger nests and brood cells and have higher foraging capacity than small mothers, and consequently large mothers supply a larger amount of food to their larvae, which grow larger. We analyzed the relationship between body size of individual oil-collecting bees of the species Tetrapedia diversipes and the size of their brood cells from Boracéia and Ilhabela, southeastern Brazil. In addition, we manipulated 26 brood cells of a population at the campus of Universidade de São Paulo by removing food from 13 brood cells. In this case, we checked the relationship between the body size of these bees and the amount of food consumed. We measured 241 individuals: 135 males and 106 females. No significant size difference was found between males and females. Only a weak relationship between body size and brood cell volume was detected, possibly due to the low variation in both female size and brood cell size. In the food manipulation experiment, the unmanipulated individuals were larger than individuals for whom part of the provisions were removed but no correlation was found between amount of food removed and offspring size.

Related collections

Most cited references 16

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small?

W Blanckenhorn (2000)

It is widely agreed that fecundity selection and sexual selection are the major evolutionary forces that select for larger body size in most organisms. The general, equilibrium view is that selection for large body size is eventually counterbalanced by opposing selective forces. While the evidence for selection favoring larger body size is overwhelming, counterbalancing selection favoring small body size is often masked by the good condition of the larger organism and is therefore less obvious. The suggested costs of large size are: (1) viability costs in juveniles due to long development and/or fast growth; (2) viability costs in adults and juveniles due to predation, parasitism, or starvation because of reduced agility, increased detectability, higher energy requirements, heat stress, and/or intrinsic costs of reproduction; (3) decreased mating success of large males due to reduced agility and/or high energy requirements; and (4) decreased reproductive success of large females and males due to late reproduction. A review of the literature indicates a substantial lack of empirical evidence for these various mechanisms and highlights the need for experimental studies that specifically address the fitness costs of being large at the ecological, physiological, and genetic levels. Specifically, theoretical investigations and comprehensive case studies of particular model species are needed to elucidate whether sporadic selection in time and space is sufficient to counterbalance perpetual and strong selection for large body size.