Area step one: forager size change along side foraging season
Into the first area, for each mixture of predictors is checked-out 3 times, by using the around three muscles measurements just like the response parameters. I modelled the results out-of “months” and you can “locatweons” (we.e. apiary ID) into dimensions measurement as well as on their coefficient from version (CoV). I checked out the end result regarding weeks as the something and get since the an effective covariate in separate designs. Way more precisely, when evaluation months once the the one thing, we checked for a positive change in size proportions anywhere between some of the newest weeks, while whenever investigations weeks while the an excellent covariate, i examined to own a general development (improve or drop off) across the weeks. While doing so, i checked the results off colony dimensions
Hence, this new dating involving the areas of the body was comparable throughout around three metropolises
On 2nd part, we utilized LMEs to test if the waggle work on duration of bees regarding a colony is connected to the mediocre head size out of bees away from that nest. During the last area, LMEs was performed to check on if waggle work at stage conveyed by a performer are synchronised with the lead depth of the identical dancer.
Show
The three body measurements were highly correlated (LME; head-wing ? 2 1 = , P < 0.0001; head-leg ? 2 1 = , P < 0.0001; wing-leg ? 2 1 = , P < 0.0001). There was no interaction with location (LME; head-wing ? 2 2 = 2.1167, P = 0.347; head-leg ? 2 2 = 1.5043, P = 0.471342; wing-leg ? 2 2 = 1.6048, P = 0.4483). Our results also indicated that the relationship between the leg width and the head width was allometric (slope = 2.2, CI 2.09–2.3), as well as the relationship between the leg width and the forewing length (slope = 2.08, CI 1.99–2.18). The relationship between the head width and forewing length was isometric (slope = 1.05, CI 1–1.09).
Using month as a factor, a significant interaction was found between the months and the locations for each body part (head ? 2 fourteen = 55.5, P = <0.0001; wing ? 2 14 = 27.5, P = 0.0164; leg ? 2 14 = , P < 0.0001). Thus, the change in size during the season differed between locations. More precisely, the two apiaries in Lausanne show highly significant differences of bee size between the months (see Table I). This is not the case for the apiary in Liebefeld (except for the leg measurements, Table I). To explore the temporal effects further, we used month as covariate to test if there was a tendency of bees to increase in size during the study period. We found that the three body measurements significantly increased over the months (LME; head ? 2 1 = , P < 0.0001; wing ? 2 1 = , P = 0.0007; leg ? 2 1 = 7.1524, P = 0.007) (Figure 2). Subsequent analyses, exploring general patterns over the months, found no interaction between the month and the location (head ? 2 2 = 1.8578, P = 0.395; wing ? 2 2 = 4.9916, P = 0.082; leg ? 2 2 = 1.012, P = 0.603).
Direct thickness (a), forewing size (b) and you may hind base thickness (c) split up by the apiaries and also by months. Field plots to the remaining portray Liebefeld apiary (Liebefeld), in-between portray the latest patio apiary in Lausanne (Terrace) and on the right represent brand new rooftop apiary for the Lausanne (Roof). The latest packages indicate the details amongst the 25 and you will 75 % quartiles such as the average (black colored line); this new whiskers depict the minimum and you will limit thinking, outliers excluded (illustrated of the discover sectors).