Extensive studies of vertebrates have shown that brain size scales to body size following power law functions. Most animals are substantially smaller than vertebrates, and extremely small animals face significant challenges relating to nervous system design and function, yet little is known about their brain allometry. Within a well-defined monophyletic taxon, Formicidae (ants), we analyzed how brain size scales to body size. An analysis of brain allometry for individuals of a highly polymorphic leaf-cutter ant, Atta colombica, shows that allometric coefficients differ significantly for small (<1.4 mg body mass) versus large individuals (b = 0.6003 and 0.2919, respectively). Interspecifically, allometric patterns differ for small (<0.9 mg body mass) versus large species (n = 70 species). Using mean values for species, the allometric coefficient for smaller species (b = 0.7961) is significantly greater than that for larger ones (b = 0.669). The smallest ants had brains that constitute ∼15% of their body mass, yet their brains were relatively smaller than predicted by an overall allometric coefficient of brain to body size. Our comparative and intraspecific studies show the extent to which nervous systems can be miniaturized in taxa exhibiting behavior that is apparently comparable to that of larger species or individuals.

Keywords:
Allometry, Ants, Brain evolution, Miniaturization, Polymorphism
1.
Beutel RG, Pohl H, Hunefeld F (2005): Strepsipteran brains and effects of miniaturization (Insecta). Arth Struct Develop 34:301–313.
2.
Bonner JT (2006): Why Size Matters: From Bacteria to Blue Whales. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
3.
Brady SG, Schultz TR, Fisher BL, Ward PS (2006): Evaluating alternative hypotheses for the early evolution and diversification of ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:18172–18177.
4.
Chittka L, Niven JE (2009): Are bigger brains better? Curr Biol 19:R995–R1008 .
5.
Cole BJ (1985): Size and behavior in ants: constraints on complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82:8548–8551.
6.
Crawley MJ (2007): The R Book. Chichester, Wiley.
7.
Cuvier G (1845): Leçons d’anatomie comparée. Vol 3: contenant le système nerveux et les organes des sens, ed 2. Paris, Fortin, Masson et Cie.
8.
Darwin C (1871): The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Princeton, Princeton University Press. (1981 reprint of 1871 ed).
9.
Eberhard WG (2007): Miniaturized orb-weaving spiders: behavioural precision is not limited by small size. Pro Roy Soc Ser B 274:2203–2209.
10.
Eberhard WG, Garcia JM, Lobo J (2000): Size-specific defensive structures in a horned weevil confirm a classic battle plan: avoid fights with larger opponents. Proc Biol Sci 267:1129–1134.
11.
Eberhard WG, Gutierrez EE (1991): Male dimorphisms in beetles and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution 45:18–28.
12.
Felsenstein J (1985): Phylogenies and the comparative method. Amer Nat 125:1–15.
13.
Fernández-Marín H, Zimmerman JK, Nash DR, Boomsma JJ, Wcislo WT (2009): Reduced biological control and enhanced chemical pest management in the evolution of fungus-farming in ants. Pro Roy Soc Ser B 276:2263–2269.
14.
Fiala JC (2005): Reconstruct: a free editor for serial section microscopy. J Microsc 218:52–61.
15.
Gonzalez-Voyer A, Winberg S, Kolm N (2009): Distinct evolutionary patterns of brain and body size during adaptive radiation. Evolution 63:2266–2274.
16.
Grebennikov VV (2008): How small you can go: factors limiting body miniaturization in winged insects with a review of the pantropical genus Discheramocephalus and description of six new species of the smallest beetles (Pterygota: Coleoptera: Ptiliidae). Eur J Entomol 105:313–328.
17.
Grimaldi D, Engel MS (2004): Evolution of the Insects. New York, Cambridge University Press.
18.
Hanken J, Wake DB (1993): Miniaturization of body size: organismal consequences and evolutionary significance. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24:501–519.
19.
Harvey PH, Krebs JR (1990): Comparing brains. Science 249:140–146.
20.
Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991): The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. New York, Oxford University Press.
21.
Hesselberg T (2010): Ontogenetic changes in web design in two orb-web spiders. Ethology 116:535–545.
22.
Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990): The Ants. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
23.
Kern MJ (1985): Metabolic rate of the insect brain in relation to body size and phylogeny. Comp Biochem Physiol 81:501–506.
24.
Kleineidam CJ, Obermayer M, Halbich W, Rössler W (2005): A macroglomerulus in the antennal lobe of leaf-cutting ant workers and its possible functional significance. Chem Senses 30:383–392.
25.
Kleineidam CJ, Rössler W, Hölldobler B, Roces F (2007): Perceptual differences in trail following leaf-cutting ants relate to body size. J Insect Physiol 53:1233–1241.
26.
Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2007): Mesquite: A Modular System for Evolutionary Analysis. Version 2.0. http://mesquiteproject.org
27.
Mares S, Ash L, Gronenberg W (2005): Brain allometry in bumblebee and honeybee workers. Brain Behav Evol 66:50–61.
28.
McGee VE, Carleton WT (1970): Piecewise regression. J Am Stat Assoc 65:1109–1124.
29.
Midford PE, Garland T Jr, Maddison W (2005): PDAP Package for Mesquite. Version 1.07. http://mesquiteproject.org/pdap_mesquite/
30.
Miklos GLG (1998): The evolution and modification of brains and sensory systems. Daedalus 127:197–216.
31.
Niven JE, Scharlemann JPW (2005): Do insect metabolic rates at rest and during flight scale with body mass? Biol Lett 1:346–349.
32.
Niven JE, Anderson JC, Laughlin SB (2007): Fly photoreceptors demonstrate energy-information trade-offs in neural coding. PLoS Biol 5:828–840.
33.
Niven JE, Laughlin SB (2008): Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems. J Exp Biol 211:1792–1804.
34.
Polilov AA, Beutel RG (2010): Developmental stages of the hooded beetle Sericoderus lateralis (Coleoptera: Corylophidae) with comments on the phylogenetic position and effects of miniaturization. Arth Struct Develop 39:52–69.
35.
Polilov AA (2008): Anatomy of the smallest Coleoptera, featherwing beetles of the tribe Nanosellini (Coleoptera, Ptiliidae), and limits of insect miniaturization. Ent Rev 88:26–33.
36.
Rensch B (1948): Histological change with evolutionary changes of body size. Evolution 2:218–230.
37.
Rensch B (1956): Increase of learning capability with increase of brain size. Amer Nat 90:81–95.
38.
Rensch B (1959): Evolution above the Species Level. New York, Columbia University Press.
39.
Ricklefs RE, Starck M (1996): Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed progress report. Oikos 77:167–172.
40.
Roth G, Blanke J, Ohle M (1995): Brain size and morphology in miniaturized plethodontid salamanders. Brain Behav Evol45:84–95.
41.
Snell-Rood EC, Papaj DR, Gronenberg W (2009): Brain size: a global or induced cost of learning? Brain Behav Evol 73:111–128.
42.
Striedter GF (2005): Principles of Brain Evolution.Sunderland, Sinauer.
43.
Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006): Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev 81:259–291.
44.
Weber NA (1972): Gardening Ants, The Attines. Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society.
45.
Wehner R, Fukushi T, Isler K (2007): On being small: brain allometry in ants. Brain Behav Evol 69:220–228.
46.
White CR, Blackburn TM, Seymour RS (2009): Phylogenetically informed analysis of the allometry of mammalian basal metabolic rate supports neither geometric nor quarter-power scaling. Evolution 63:2658–2667.
47.
Wilson EO (1953): The origin and evolution of polymorphism in ants. Q Rev Biol 28:136–156.
48.
Zantke J, Wolff C, Scholtz G (2008): Three-dimensional reconstruction of the central nervous system of Macrobiotus hufelandi (Eutardigrada, Parachela): implications for the phylogenetic position of Tardigrada. Zoomorphology 127:21–36.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.