Estimation of Heritabilities for Some Morphological Traits in Bumblebees, Bombus terrestris L.

Abstract

Some morphological traits of Bombus terrestris workers, which three generation were reared and their pedigree records were known, were measured. Heritability of these traits were estimated. In the study, 43, 115 and 42 colonies were used for the first generation, the second generation, and the third generation, respectively. Three workers collected from each colony and morphological traits of 600 workers were measured and their heritability was estimated. Results showed that the heritability of some morphological traits that can affect the pollination performance of B. terrestris were estimated as 0.71  0.045 for worker weight, 0.72 ± 0.045 for tongue length, 0.75 ± 0.045 for forewing length, 0.71 ± 0.045 for forewing width, 0.74 ± 0.045 for hindwing length, 0.74 ± 0.045 for hindwing width, 0.64 ± 0.046 for wing index, 0.69 ± 0.045 for hind leg length, 0.45 ± 0.046 for femur length, 0.73 ± 0.045 for tibia length, 0.63 ± 0.046 for metatarsus length, 0.65 ± 0.046 for metatarsus width, and 0,60 ± 0,046 for metatarsus index.

Keywords

• Bombus terrestris
• Genetic parameter
• Heritability
• Morphological characters

Bombus (Bombus terrestris L.) Arısında Bazı Morfolojik Özelliklerin Kalıtım Derecelerinin Tahmini

Öz

Araştırmada, üç generasyon yetiştirilen ve pedigri kayıtları bilinen Bombus terrestris kolonilerinde üretilen işçi arılarının bazı morfolojik özellikleri ölçülmüş ve bu özelliklerin kalıtım dereceleri tahmin edilmiştir. Çalışmada birinci generasyonda 43 adet, ikinci generasyonda 115 adet ve üçüncü generasyonda ise 42 adet koloni kullanılmıştır. Her bir koloniden 3 adet işçi arı alınmış ve toplam 600 adet işçi arıya ait morfolojik özellikler ölçülüp kalıtım dereceleri tahmin edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda B. terrestris işçi arılarının tarlacılık performansına etki edebilecek morfolojik özelliklerin kalıtım dereceleri (h2) işçi arı ağırlığı için 0.71  0.045, dil uzunluğu için 0.72  0.045, ön kanat uzunluğu için 0.75  0.045, ön kanat genişliği için 0.71  0.045, arka kanat uzunluğu için 0.74  0.045, arka kanat genişliği için 0.74  0.045, kanat indeksi için 0.64  0.046, femur uzunluğu için 0.45  0.046, tibia uzunluğu için 0.73  0.045, metatarsus uzunluğu için 0.63  0.046, arka bacak uzunluğu için 0.69  0.045, metatarsus genişliği için 0.65  0.046 ve metatarsus indeksi için 0.60  0.046 olarak tahmin edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bombus terrestris
• Genetik parametre
• Kalıtım derecesi
• Morfolojik özellikler

Kaynakça

1. Baer B, De Jong, G, Schmid-Hempel R, Schmid-Hempel P, Hoeg JT, Boomsma JJ (2006). Heritability of sperm length in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Genetica, 127 (1-3): 11-23. doi:10.1007/s10709-005-2157-1.
2. Brascamp EW, Willam A, Boigenzahn C, Bijma P, Veerkamp RF (2016). Heritabilities and genetic correlations for honey yield, gentleness, calmness and swarming behaviour in Austrian honey bees. Apidologie, 47(6): 739-748. doi:10.1007/s13592-016-0427-9.
3. Cariveau DP, Nayak GK, Bartomeus I, Zientek J, Ascher JS, Gibbs J, Winfree R (2016). The allometry of bee proboscis length and its uses in ecology. PLoS One, 11(3), e0151482. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151482.
4. Couvillon MJ, Dornhaus A (2009). Location, location, location: larvae position inside the nest is correlated with adult body size in worker bumble-bees (Bombus impatiens). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1666), 2411-2418. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0172.
5. De Luca PA, Buchmann S, Galen C, Mason AC, Vallejo‐Marin M (2019). Does body size predict the buzz‐pollination frequencies used by bees? Ecology and Evolution, 9(8): 4875-4887. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5092.
6. Dudley R, Ellington CP (1990). Mechanics of forward flight in bumblebees: I. Kinematics and morphology. Journal of Experimental Biology, 148(1): 19-52.
7. Falconer DS (1981). Introduction to quantitative genetics. 2nd ed. Longman, London.
8. Gilmour A, Thompson R, Cullis B (1995). Average Information REML: An Efficient algorithm for variance parameter estimation in linear mixed models. Biometrics, 51(4): 1440-1450. doi:10.2307/2533274.

9. Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC, Hughes WO (2002). Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, be explained in terms of foraging efficiency? Animal Behaviour, 64(1): 123-130. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.3041.
10. Gökmen Ö, Gösterit A (2019). Bombus terrestris L. işçi arılarının bazı morfolojik özelliklerinin ve morfolojik özelliklerin polen yükü üzerine etkisinin belirlenmesi. Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2): 212-218.
11. Güler A, Kaftanoğlu O (1999). Türkiye’deki önemli balarısı (Apis mellifera L.) ırk ve ekotiplerinin göçer arıcılık koşularında performanslarının karşılaştırılması. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 23: 577-581.
12. Ibe SN, Hill WG (1988). Transformation of poultry egg production data to improve normality, homoscedasticity and linearity of genotypic regression. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 105(1‐6): 231-240. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.1988.tb00295.x.
13. Inouye DW (1980). The effect of proboscis and corolla tube lengths on patterns and rates of flower visitation by bumblebees. Oecologia, 45(2): 197-201. doi: 10.1007/BF00346460.
14. Kolmes SA, Sam Y (1991). Relationships between sizes of morphological features in worker honey bees (Apis mellifera). Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 99(4): 684-690.
15. Liu FH, Smith SM (2000). Estimating quantitative genetic parameters in haplodiploid organisms. Heredity, 85(4): 373-382.
16. Mostajeran M, Edriss MA, Basiri MR (2002). Heritabilities and correlations for colony traits and morphological characters in honey bee (Apis mellifera meda). Seventh World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, 19-23.
17. Mostajeran MA, Edriss MA, Basiri MR (2006). Analysis of colony and morphological characters in honey bees (Apis mellifera meda). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 9(14): 2685-2688. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2006.2685.2688.
18. Nagamitsu T, Kenta T, Inari N, Kato E, Hiura T (2007). Abundance, body size, and morphology of bumblebees in an area where an exotic species, Bombus terrestris, has colonized in Japan. Ecological Research, 22(2): 331-341. doi: 10.1007/s11284-006-0029-5.
19. Özmen Özbakır G (2011). Türkiye’nin Güneydoğu sınırboyu bal arısı populasyonlarının (Apis mellifera L.) morfolojik özellikleri (Doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
20. Peat J, Tucker J, Goulson D (2005). Does intraspecific size variation in bumblebees allow colonies to efficiently exploit different flowers? Ecological Entomology, 30(2): 176-181. doi: 10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00676.x.
21. Persson AS, Smith HG (2011). Bumblebee colonies produce larger foragers in complex landscapes. Basic and Applied Ecology, 12(8): 695-702. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2011.10.002.
22. Plowright CMS, Plowright RC (1997). The advantage of short tongues in bumble bees (Bombus)—analyses of species distributions according to flower corolla depth, and of working speeds on white clover. The Canadian Entomologist, 129(1): 51-59. doi: 10.4039/Ent12951-1.
23. Poklukar J, Kezic N (1994). Estimation of heritability of some characteristics of hind legs and wings of honeybee workers (Apis mellifera carnica Polm) using the half-sibs method. Apidologie, 25(1): 3-11. doi: 10.1051/apido:19940101.
24. Ribeiro MF (1994). Growth in bumble bee larvae: relation between development time, mass, and amount of pollen ingested. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 72: 1978–1985. doi:10.1139/z94-270.
25. Shpigler H, Tamarkin M, Gruber Y, Poleg M, Siegel AJ, Bloch G (2013). Social influences on body size and developmental time in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67(10): 1601-1612. doi:10.1007/s00265-013-1571-0.
26. Spaethe J, Weidenmüller A (2002). Size variation and foraging rate in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Insectes Sociaux, 49(2): 142-146. doi: 10.1007/s00040-002-8293-z.