4.5 Article

Social immunity in honeybeesDensity dependence, diet, and body mass trade-offs

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 4852-4859

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4011

关键词

Apis mellifera; glucose oxidase; honey bees; insect immunity; prophylaxis

资金

  1. University of York
  2. Fera
  3. APIS Applied Insect Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Group living is favorable to pathogen spread due to the increased risk of disease transmission among individuals. Similar to individual immune defenses, social immunity, that is antiparasite defenses mounted for the benefit of individuals other than the actor, is predicted to be altered in social groups. The eusocial honey bee (Apis mellifera) secretes glucose oxidase (GOX), an antiseptic enzyme, throughout its colony, thereby providing immune protection to other individuals in the hive. We conducted a laboratory experiment to investigate the effects of group density on social immunity, specifically GOX activity, body mass and feeding behavior in caged honey bees. Individual honeybees caged in a low group density displayed increased GOX activity relative to those kept at a high group density. In addition, we provided evidence for a trade-off between GOX activity and body mass: Individuals caged in the low group density had a lower body mass, despite consuming more food overall. Our results provide the first experimental evidence that group density affects a social immune response in a eusocial insect. Moreover, we showed that the previously reported trade-off between immunity and body mass extends to social immunity. GOX production appears to be costly for individuals, and potentially the colony, given that low body mass is correlated with small foraging ranges in bees. At high group densities, individuals can invest less in social immunity than at low densities, while presumably gaining shared protection from infection. Thus, there is evidence that trade-offs at the individual level (GOX vs. body mass) can affect colony-level fitness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据