Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, be explained in terms of foraging efficiency?

By Dave Goulson, J. Peat, J C Stout, J. Tucker, W. Hughes. 2002

297 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Insect Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ae36a8a9b3c371aad24117aacbbbf0925dd8a2b9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Genetics

In Insect Science

Citations in the corpus

Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behaviour induced by sublethal pesticide exposure (2014, methodology): “…in part be due to the fact that larger workers have greater visual acuity and antennal sensitivity which is important for foraging (Spa- ethe & Chittka 2003; Spaethe et al. 2007) and are able to carry much larger pollen loads per foraging trip (Goulson et al. 2002; Spaethe & Weidenm€uller 2002).”
Does intraspecific size variation in bumblebees allow colonies to efficiently exploit different flowers? (2005, methodology): “They can also carry more nectar and pollen, and when collecting nectar (but not pollen) they bring back more forage per unit time (Goulson et al., 2002).”
Chance and adaptation in the evolution of island bumblebee behaviour (2004, methodology): “One possible explanation for between-population differences in foraging performance could be that members of different populations differ in body size, since body size is a good predictor of foraging rate within populations (Goulson et al. 2002; Spaethe and Weidenmüller 2002).”
Generalist foraging of pollinators: diet expansion at high density (2008, background): “It has indeed been shown that large bumblebees have a higher foraging efficiency (Goulson et al. 2002; Spaethe & Weidenmuller 2002), perhaps because of more efficient sensory systems (e.g. Spaethe & Chittka 2003), better ability to learn (e.g. Worden et al. 2005) or simply higher aggressiveness…”
Adaptation, Genetic Drift, Pleiotropy, and History in the Evolution of Bee Foraging Behavior (2006, methodology): “We reduced the nest entrance diameter to 7 mm to prevent the escape of newly emerged queens from their natal nest, while allowing the smaller foraging workers to pass freely (worker thorax width 3–7 mm: Goulson, 2003; Goulson et al., 2002).”
Larger pollinators deposit more pollen on stigmas across multiple plant species—A meta‐analysis (2020, background): “This is not only because of body size, but also the hairiness of body and their adaptation to morphological traits of flowers they visit (Goulson et al., 2002).”
Spatial organization and division of labour in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens (2009, background): “…to forage (Alford 1978; Goulson et al. 2002; Spaethe & Weidenmüller 2002; Foster et al. 2004; Worden et al. 2005), whereas smaller individuals are more often observed remaining inside the nest throughout their lifetime (Brian 1952; Goulson et al. 2002; Heinrich 2004; Yerushalmi et al. 2006).”
Plight of the bumble bee: Pathogen spillover from commercial to wild populations (2006, background): “large bees to spend more time foraging ( Goulson et al., 2002 ) exposes them to greater risks of infection.”
Productivity increases with variation in aggression among group members in Temnothorax ants (2011, background): “Support for this hypothesis comes from bumblebees where larger workers collect more nectar per unit time (Goulson et al. 2002; Spaethe and Weidenmüller 2002).”
Evidence for competition between honeybees and bumblebees; effects on bumblebee worker size (2009, background): “Large workers collect more food per unit time than do their smaller sisters (Goulson et al. 2002; Peat and Goulson 2005), in part because large workers have higher visual acuity and so are better able to swiftly Table 1 Numbers of each bumblebee species caught at each study site, and numbers of…”
Effects of climate on intra- and interspecific size variation in bumble-bees (2005, background): “Thorax width in Bombus terrestris workers is positively related to corbicula hair length (Goulson et al. 2002) so it is possible that small workers can carry a greater amount of pollen than large workers, relative to their mass. Finally, a larger abdomen can contain more nectar than a smaller one,…”
Can commercially imported bumble bees out‐compete their native conspecifics? (2006, methodology): “Body mass was used as a covariate in the GLM, as nectarforaging rate of B. terrestris is known to be positively related to body size ( Goulson et al . 2002b; Spaethe & Weidenmuller 2002; Ings, Schikora & Chittka 2005).”
Diet breadth, coexistence and rarity in bumblebees (2008, background): “In contrast the common species tend to have broad foraging preferences and readily encompass non-native garden plants and mass-flowering crops in their diets (see also Goulson et al. 2002b).”
The Physiological and Genomic Bases of Bumble Bee Social Behaviour (2015, background): “…and Dornhaus, 2009; O’Donnell et al., 2000; Yerushalmi et al., 2006), bumble bee workers do exhibit task specialization (Doorn van, 1986) that is loosely dependent on adult size (alloethism) rather than on worker age (polyethism) (Cameron, 1989; Cameron and Robinson, 1990; Goulson et al., 2002).”
Weak specialization of workers inside a bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) nest (2009, background): “In general, these differences lead to larger bees being more likely to forage (Goulson et al. 2002; Spaethe and Weidenmüller 2002), whereas smaller bees are more likely to remain inside the nest and perform nursing tasks (Alford 1978; Brian 1952; Heinrich 2004; Jandt and Dornhaus 2009; Yerushalmi…”