Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35338566›Full record

SynthesisBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2022

Five decades of misunderstanding in the social Hymenoptera: a review and meta-analysis of Michener's paradox.

Robert L Jeanne, Kevin J Loope, Andrew M Bouwma, Erik V Nordheim, Michael L Smith

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The evolution of division of labour: preconditions and evolutionary feedback.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Sexual Offspring Production by Acorn AntAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Robert L Jeanne *Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0001-9908-7457
Kevin J Loope *Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Cheatham Hall, 310 W. Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0002-1206-5640
Andrew M BouwmaDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Cordley Hall, 3029, 2701 SW Campus Way, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A.
Erik V NordheimDepartment of Statistics, University of Wisconsin, 1300 University Avenue, Madison, WI, 53706, U.S.A.
Michael L SmithDepartment of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36849, U.S.A.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a much-cited 1964 paper entitled "Reproductive efficiency in relation to colony size in hymenopterous societies," Charles Michener investigated the correlation between a colony's size and its reproductive efficiency - the ability of its adult females to produce reproductives, measured as per-capita output. Based on his analysis of published data from destructively sampled colonies in 18 species, he reported that in most of these species efficiency decreased with increasing colony size. His conclusion that efficiency is higher in smaller groups has since gained widespread acceptance. But it created a seeming paradox: how can natural selection maintain social behaviour when a female apparently enjoys her highest per-capita output by working alone? Here we treat Michener's pattern as a hypothesis and perform the first large-scale test of its prediction across the eusocial Hymenoptera. Because data on actual output of reproductives were not available for most species, Michener used various proxies, such as nest size, numbers of brood, or amounts of stored food. We show that for each of Michener's data sets the reported decline in per-capita productivity can be explained by factors other than decreasing efficiency, calling into question his conclusion that declining efficiency is the cause of the pattern. The most prominent cause of bias is the failure of the proxy to capture all forms of output in which the colony invests during the course of its ontogeny. Other biasing factors include seasonal effects and a variety of methodological flaws in the data sets he used. We then summarize the results of 215 data sets drawn from post-1964 studies of 80 species in 33 genera that better control for these factors. Of these, 163 data sets are included in two meta-analyses that statistically synthesize the available data on the relationship between colony size and efficiency, accounting for variable sample sizes and non-independence among the data sets. The overall effect, and those for most taxonomic subgroups, indicates no loss of efficiency with increasing colony size. Two exceptional taxa, the halictid bees and independent-founding paper wasps, show negative trends consistent with the Michener hypothesis in some species. We conclude that in most species, particularly those with large colony sizes, the hypothesis of decreasing efficiency with increasing colony size is not supported. Finally, we explore potential mechanisms through which the level of efficiency can decrease, be maintained, or even increase, as colonies increase in size.

Indexed as

WaspsAnimalsBeesFemaleMaleReproductionSelection, GeneticSocial Behaviorcolony developmentcolony sizedivision of labourergonomic efficiencyHymenopterasocial evolution

Identifiers

PMID35338566
PMCPMC9546470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.