4.5 Article

Ovarian developmental variation in the primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata suggests a gateway to worker ontogeny and the evolution of sociality

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 216, Issue 2, Pages 181-187

Publisher

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.073148

Keywords

ovarian development; social wasp; caste differentiation; eusociality

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Science and Technology
  2. Department of Biotechnology
  3. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India
  4. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Social insects are characterized by reproductive caste differentiation of colony members into one or a small number of fertile queens and a large number of sterile workers. The evolutionary origin and maintenance of such sterile workers remains an enduring puzzle in insect sociobiology. Here, we studied ovarian development in over 600 freshly eclosed, isolated, virgin female Ropalidia marginata wasps, maintained in the laboratory. The wasps differed greatly both in the time taken to develop their ovaries and in the magnitude of ovarian development despite having similar access to resources. All females started with no ovarian development at day zero, and the percentage of individuals with at least one oocyte at any stage of development increased gradually across age, reached 100% at 100. days and decreased slightly thereafter. Approximately 40% of the females failed to develop ovaries within the average ecological lifespan of the species. Age, body size and adult feeding rate, when considered together, were the most important factors governing ovarian development. We suggest that such flexibility and variation in the potential and timing of reproductive development may physiologically predispose females to accept worker roles and thus provide a gateway to worker ontogeny and the evolution of sociality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available