Literature DB >> 26072696

Microhabitat and body size effects on heat tolerance: implications for responses to climate change (army ants: Formicidae, Ecitoninae).

Kaitlin M Baudier1, Abigail E Mudd1, Shayna C Erickson1, Sean O'Donnell1.   

Abstract

1. Models that predict organismal and population responses to climate change may be improved by considering ecological factors that affect species thermal tolerance. Species differences in microhabitat use can expose animals to diverse thermal selective environments at a given site and may cause sympatric species to evolve different thermal tolerances. 2. We tested the hypothesis that species differences in body size and microhabitat use (above- vs. below-ground activity) would correspond to differences in thermal tolerance (maximum critical temperatures: CTmax ). Thermal buffering effects of soil can reduce exposure to extreme high temperatures for below-ground active species. We predicted larger-bodied individuals and species would have higher CTmax and that species mean CTmax would covary positively with degree of above-ground activity. We used Neotropical army ants (Formicidae: Ecitoninae) as models. Army ants vary in microhabitat use from largely subterranean to largely above-ground active species and are highly size polymorphic. 3. We collected data on above- and below-ground temperatures in habitats used by army ants to test for microhabitat temperature differences, and we conducted CTmax assays for army ant species with varying degrees of surface activity and with different body sizes within and between species. We then tested whether microhabitat use was associated with species differences in CTmax and whether microhabitat was a better predictor of CTmax than body size for species that overlapped in size. 4. Microhabitat use was a highly significant predictor of species' upper thermal tolerance limits, both for raw data and after accounting for the effects of phylogeny. Below-ground species were more thermally sensitive, with lower maximum critical temperatures (CTmax ). The smallest workers within each species were the least heat tolerant, but the magnitude of CTmax change with body size was greater in below-ground species. Species-typical microhabitat was a stronger predictor of CTmax than body size for species that overlapped in size. Compared to the soil surface, 10-cm subsoil was a significantly moderated thermal environment for below-ground army ants, while maximum surface raid temperatures sometimes exceeded CTmax for the most thermally sensitive army ant castes. 5. We conclude sympatric species differences in thermal physiology correspond to microhabitat use. These patterns should be accounted for in models of species and community responses to thermal variation and climate change.
© 2015 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2015 British Ecological Society.

Keywords:  caste; eye size; microclimate; soil thermal buffering; thermal sensitivity

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26072696     DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12388

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Ecol        ISSN: 0021-8790            Impact factor:   5.091


  25 in total

1.  Evolution of thermal tolerance and its fitness consequences: parallel and non-parallel responses to urban heat islands across three cities.

Authors:  Sarah E Diamond; Lacy D Chick; Abe Perez; Stephanie A Strickler; Ryan A Martin
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Sex-specific stress tolerance, proteolysis, and lifespan in the invertebrate Tigriopus californicus.

Authors:  Helen B Foley; Patrick Y Sun; Rocio Ramirez; Brandon K So; Yaamini R Venkataraman; Emily N Nixon; Kelvin J A Davies; Suzanne Edmands
Journal:  Exp Gerontol       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 4.032

3.  Into the black and back: the ecology of brain investment in Neotropical army ants (Formicidae: Dorylinae).

Authors:  S Bulova; K Purce; P Khodak; E Sulger; S O'Donnell
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2016-03-08

4.  Body mass and sex, not local climate, drive differences in chill coma recovery times in common garden reared bumble bees.

Authors:  K Jeannet Oyen; Laura E Jardine; Zachary M Parsons; James D Herndon; James P Strange; Jeffrey D Lozier; Michael E Dillon
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 2.200

5.  Is thermal limitation the primary driver of elevational distributions? Not for montane rainforest ants in the Australian Wet Tropics.

Authors:  Somayeh Nowrouzi; Alan N Andersen; Tom R Bishop; Simon K A Robson
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Warm and arid regions of the world are hotspots of superorganism complexity.

Authors:  Frédérique La Richelière; Gabriel Muñoz; Benoit Guénard; Robert R Dunn; Evan P Economo; Scott Powell; Nathan J Sanders; Michael D Weiser; Ehab Abouheif; Jean-Philippe Lessard
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Tree species matter for forest microclimate regulation during the drought year 2018: disentangling environmental drivers and biotic drivers.

Authors:  Ronny Richter; Helen Ballasus; Rolf A Engelmann; Christoph Zielhofer; Anvar Sanaei; Christian Wirth
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Thermal niche estimators and the capability of poor dispersal species to cope with climate change.

Authors:  David Sánchez-Fernández; Valeria Rizzo; Alexandra Cieslak; Arnaud Faille; Javier Fresneda; Ignacio Ribera
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Desiccation resistance in tropical insects: causes and mechanisms underlying variability in a Panama ant community.

Authors:  Jelena Bujan; Stephen P Yanoviak; Michael Kaspari
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 2.912

10.  Interactions between rates of temperature change and acclimation affect latitudinal patterns of warming tolerance.

Authors:  Jessica L Allen; Steven L Chown; Charlene Janion-Scheepers; Susana Clusella-Trullas
Journal:  Conserv Physiol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.