Trail laying during tandem-running recruitment in the ant Temnothorax albipennis

Tandem running is a recruitment strategy whereby one ant leads a single naïve nest mate to a resource. While tandem running progresses towards the goal, the leader ant and the follower ant maintain contact mainly by tactile signals. In this paper, we investigated whether they also deposit chemical signals on the ground during tandem running. We filmed tandem-running ants and analysed the position of the gasters of leaders and followers. Our results show that leader ants are more likely to press their gasters down to the substrate compared to follower ants, single ants and transporter ants. Forward tandem-run leaders (those moving towards a new nest site) performed such trail-marking procedures three times more often than reverse tandem leaders (those moving towards an old nest site). That leader ants marked the trails more often during forward tandem runs may suggest that it is more important to maintain the bond with the follower ant on forward tandem runs than on reverse tandem runs. Marked trails on the ground may serve as a safety line that improves both the efficiency of tandem runs and their completion rates. © 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

Trail laying during tandem-running recruitment in the ant Temnothorax albipennis

Tandem running is a recruitment strategy whereby one ant leads a single naïve nest mate to a resource. While tandem running progresses towards the goal, the leader ant and the follower ant maintain contact mainly by tactile signals. In this paper, we investigated whether they also deposit chemical signals on the ground during tandem running. We filmed tandem-running ants and analysed the position of the gasters of leaders and followers. Our results show that leader ants are more likely to press their gasters down to the substrate compared to follower ants, single ants and transporter ants. Forward tandem-run leaders (those moving towards a new nest site) performed such trail-marking procedures three times more often than reverse tandem leaders (those moving towards an old nest site). That leader ants marked the trails more often during forward tandem runs may suggest that it is more important to maintain the bond with the follower ant on forward tandem runs than on reverse tandem runs. Marked trails on the ground may serve as a safety line that improves both the efficiency of tandem runs and their completion rates. © 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

Data from: Tree functional diversity affects litter decomposition and arthropod community composition in a tropical forest

Disturbance can alter tree species and functional diversity in tropical forests, which in turn could affect carbon and nutrient cycling via the decomposition of plant litter. However, the influence of tropical tree diversity on forest floor organisms and the processes they mediate are far from clear. We investigated the influence of different litter mixtures on arthropod communities and decomposition processes in a 60-year-old lowland tropical forest in Panama, Central America. We used litter mixtures representing pioneer and old growth tree species in experimental mesocosms to assess the links between litter types, decomposition rates, and litter arthropod communities. Overall, pioneer species litter decomposed most rapidly and old growth species litter decomposed the slowest but there were clear non-additive effects of litter mixtures containing both functional groups. We observed distinct arthropod communities in different litter mixtures at 6 mo, with greater arthropod diversity and abundance in litter from old growth forest species. By comparing the decay of different litter mixtures in mesocosms and conventional litterbags, we demonstrated that our mesocosms represent an effective approach to link studies of litter decomposition and arthropod communities. Our results indicate that changes in the functional diversity of litter could have wider implications for arthropod communities and ecosystem functioning in tropical forests

COMPLETE MESO DATA_07_01_16_clean

Data collected from the mesocosms at 3 and 6 month

Data for R Mesos and Bags

Weight of the litter from the mesocosms and the litter bag

ALL DATA ARTHRO2

Arthropods collected at 6 month

Research data supporting "Tropical butterflies use thermal buffering and thermal tolerance as alternative strategies to cope with temperature change".

Data is in two parts, firstly field recordings of the body temperature of 54 species of tropical butterflies and ambient air conditions. Secondly, a subset of these species (24 species) used in upper thermal maxima experiments in the lab. Methods: Butterflies were sampled from multiple habitats in Panama from February 2020 to March 2022, across both wet and dry seasons. Data were collected in multiple locations: Gamboa (lowland managed urban green spaces) [9°6'59.13"N, 79°41'47.41"W] (elevation = 28 m), “Pipeline road” in Soberanía National Park (secondary semi-deciduous lowland tropical wet forest) [9° 7'39.04"N, 79°42'17.80"W] (elevation = 92 m), Campana in the Capira District (pre-montane wet encroaching scrub and secondary forest) [8°40’54.97”N, 79°55’25.08”W] (elevation = 327 m), Sajalices in the Chame District (lowland tropical wet encroaching scrub and secondary forest) [8°40’53.55”N, 79°51’57.90”W] (elevation = 150 m), El Valle (lowland tropical wet encroaching scrub) [8°37’04.7”N, 80°0656.5”W] (elevation = 674 m), Mount Totumas (lower mountain rainforest and management agroforestry) [8°52’58.6”N, 82°41’01.3”W] (elevation = 1877 m), and San Lorenzo National Park (secondary lowland tropical wet forest) [9°14’49.2”N, 79°58’44.2”W] (elevation = 185 m). This range of sites allowed the collection of a wide variety of species across a range of air temperatures (minimum = 17.4°C, mean = 28.5°C, maximum = 39.7°C). Butterflies were identified to species level using identification guides and with the help of a local expert (ACZ). The only exception was Calephelis spp., which due to their complex taxonomy, were identified only to the genus level and treated as a single species during analyses. Thermal buffering ability Surveys were undertaken in all weather conditions except rain, between 07:30 and 16:00 hours, and we attempted to capture any butterflies seen. Butterflies were caught in hand nets without chasing (to avoid raising butterfly body temperature). Immediately after capture, butterfly body temperature was recorded using a thermocouple with a handheld indicator (Tecpel Thermometer 305B, Tecpel Co. Ltd., Taiwan), by gently pressing the probe through the net against the butterfly’s thorax, without handling or touching the butterfly. Body temperature was recorded within 10 seconds of capture, followed by air temperature, taken with the thermocouple held at waist height in the shade. We then identified individual butterflies to species, and recorded wing length (with callipers, from the joint in the thorax to the tip of the forewing), and wing colour (ranked from: 1, almost white; 2, yellow-green; 3, orange; 4; orange-brown or blue; 5, brown; to 6, almost black; as established by Bladon et al. 2020). In species with multiple colours, colour values were averaged (for example, an equally black and white butterfly species would have the values for black (6) and white (1) averaged (giving 3.5)). Butterflies were marked and retained in a small cage until the end of the survey (up to a maximum of 6 hours, in shade with access to water and sugar solution) to prevent re-recording the same individuals, before being released. Thermal tolerance From January to March 2022, a subset of butterflies, captured to record their thermal buffering ability, were used for thermal tolerance experiments. Species (n = 24) were chosen based on high abundance. The selected individuals were retained in glassine envelopes with moistened cotton and kept outdoors in the shade at ambient temperature before measurement of thermal tolerance (within six hours of capture). To measure critical thermal maximum (CTmax), butterflies were placed individually into six glass jars with moistened filter paper (to prevent dehydration) in a water bath (Huber CC-K20 with Pilot ONE, Huber Kältemaschinenbau AG, Germany) at 28°C for five minutes to acclimatise. This starting temperature was chosen as it was the average ambient air temperature recorded during capture across all butterflies. A thermocouple with a hand-held indicator (Tecpel Thermometer 305B, Tecpel Co. Ltd., Taiwan) was placed into a control jar to monitor and record in-jar temperatures. After acclimatisation, the water bath was set to ramp up temperature steadily, at a rate of 0.5°C/min to a maximum of 70°C. By maintaining high humidity throughout the experiment and ramping temperature at an ecologically relevant rate (Terblanche et al. 2007), we aimed to simulate features of climate change in the tropics, for example a high temperature weather event, where temperature increases and humidity remains high. During the experiment, water bath internal temperatures (recorded using the water bath internal thermometer) and actual in-jar temperatures (recorded using the thermocouple) were recorded every five minutes to ensure the set ramping rate was achieved. To prevent inter-run differences affecting results, no more than three individuals of a single species were placed into a single run. The temperature at which each butterfly lost motor control (“knockdown”, assessed as the temperature at which the butterfly fell down and, after being poked, did not right itself) and time to knockdown were recorded (Huey, Crill, Kingsolver, & Weber, 1992). Ambient laboratory temperatures during the experiments ranged from 23-25°C. Before being placed in the water bath, wing length (measured with callipers) (Ribeiro et al. 2012) and condition (on a scale of 1-5, following Bladon et al. 2020, where 1 is perfect, 2 is scale loss but no physical damage to wings, 3 is heavy scale loss and/or light damage to wing edges, 4 is damage to multiple (but not all) wings, and 5 is significant damage on all wings) of each butterfly was recorded again. Only butterflies of conditions 1-3 were used (assessed beforehand) to prevent senescence or poor condition affecting the results. Exposure duration (including starting temperature and rate of temperature change) is known to influence critical thermal limits recorded (Terblanche et al. 2007). As the butterflies were wild-caught, temperature variation experienced throughout the life cycle, and therefore their thermal history, may have influenced our results (Kellermann et al. 2017). However, as all individuals were randomly caught in the same season of the same year for this experiment, this effect is likely to be minimal. Descriptions of columns in datasets: New_buffering_4 Family: family the butterfly species belongs to Genus_sp: Species name in the format "Genus species" Air.temp: Air temperature recorded at waist height in shade in the location the butterfly was first encountered Body.temp: Body temperature of the butterfly (recorded from the thorax within 10 seconds of capture) Size_mm: Individual wing lengths of each butterfly, recorded with callipers in mm Colour: Colour is on a scale (following the same protocol as Bladon et al 2020) from 1 (white) to 6 (black). Target_sp_only Date: data of experiment Round.num: unique number (integer starting from 1) for each experimental run in the water bath Jar: number from 1-5 representing the individual jar butterflies occupied within the waterbath Family: family that butterfly species belongs to Species: species name in the format "Genus_species" Sex: M (male) or F (female) Condition: condition of the butterfly, ranging from 1 (perfect condition) to 3 (minor damage) Time.start: Time the experiment was started at Set.end: The temperature the ramping program recorded as the final temperature the butterfly was knocked down at Int.end: The internal thermometer reading from the water bath as to the temperature the butterfly was knocked down at Act.end: The actual temperature (recorded using a thermocouple within a control jar in every waterbath run) the butterfly was knocked down at Time.end: the time it took from the Time.start in minutes and seconds for the butterfly be knocked down Recovery: Whether or not the butterfly recovered from the experiment after 1 hour at room temperature after knockdown (A = alive, D = dead) Wing.length: individual wing lengths in cm (recorded with callipers) A_1: A column of only 1's, required for the coding Buffering: The buffering ability (species-specific) of the butterfly species Colour: The colour value of the species, ranging from 1 (white) to 6 (black). See Bladon et al 2020 for further information on this scale. Waterbath_temps Round: Round number (same as above) Time: Time ranging from the start of the experiment (0) to 80 minutes later, at 5 minute intervals Set temperature: the temperature the water bath was set to at that time Internal.temp: The temperature recording from the internal thermometer of the water bath at that time Act.temp: The actual temperature within the jars (recorded using a thermocouple) at each timeThe research was funded by The Czech Science Foundation (GAČR 19-15645Y to GPAL and 20-31295S to YB), ERC Starting Grant BABE 805189 to BLH and KS, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute short-term fellowship to BLH, Cambridge Conservation Initiative/Evolution Education Trust (CCI/EET) to EAJ, and NERC Highlight topic GLiTRS project NE/V007173/1 to AJB. YB and GPAL were supported by the Sistema Nacional de Investigación, SENACYT, Panama

Tropical butterflies use thermal buffering and thermal tolerance as alternative strategies to cope with temperature increase

Climate change poses a severe threat to many taxa, with increased mean temperatures and frequency of extreme weather events predicted. Insects can respond to high temperatures using behaviour, such as angling their wings away from the sun or seeking cool local microclimates to thermoregulate, or through physiological tolerance. In a butterfly community in Panama, we compared the ability of adult butterflies from 54 species to control their body temperature across a range of air temperatures (thermal buffering ability), as well as assessing the critical thermal maxima for a subset of 23 species. Thermal buffering ability and tolerance were influenced by family, wing length, and wing colour, with Pieridae, and butterflies that are large or darker in colour having the strongest thermal buffering ability, but Hesperiidae, small, and darker butterflies tolerating the highest temperatures. We identified an interaction between thermal buffering ability and physiological tolerance, where species with stronger thermal buffering abilities had lower thermal tolerance, and vice versa. This interaction implies that species with more stable body temperatures in the field may be more vulnerable to increases in ambient temperatures, for example heat waves associated with ongoing climate change. Our study demonstrates that tropical species employ diverse thermoregulatory strategies, which is also reflected in their sensitivity to temperature extremes.The research was funded by The Czech Science Foundation (GAČR 19-15645Y to GPAL and 20-31295S to YB), ERC Starting Grant BABE 805189 to BLH and KS, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute short-term fellowship to BLH, Cambridge Conservation Initiative/Evolution Education Trust (CCI/EET) to EAJ, and NERC Highlight topic GLiTRS project NE/V007173/1 to AJB. YB and GPAL were supported by the Sistema Nacional de Investigación, SENACYT, Panama

Thermoregulatory ability and mechanism do not differ consistently between neotropical and temperate butterflies.

Climate change is a major threat to species worldwide, yet it remains uncertain whether tropical or temperate species are more vulnerable to changing temperatures. To further our understanding of this, we used a standardised field protocol to (1) study the buffering ability (ability to regulate body temperature relative to surrounding air temperature) of neotropical (Panama) and temperate (the United Kingdom, Czech Republic and Austria) butterflies at the assemblage and family level, (2) determine if any differences in buffering ability were driven by morphological characteristics and (3) used ecologically relevant temperature measurements to investigate how butterflies use microclimates and behaviour to thermoregulate. We hypothesised that temperate butterflies would be better at buffering than neotropical butterflies as temperate species naturally experience a wider range of temperatures than their tropical counterparts. Contrary to our hypothesis, at the assemblage level, neotropical species (especially Nymphalidae) were better at buffering than temperate species, driven primarily by neotropical individuals cooling themselves more at higher air temperatures. Morphology was the main driver of differences in buffering ability between neotropical and temperate species as opposed to the thermal environment butterflies experienced. Temperate butterflies used postural thermoregulation to raise their body temperature more than neotropical butterflies, probably as an adaptation to temperate climates, but the selection of microclimates did not differ between regions. Our findings demonstrate that butterfly species have unique thermoregulatory strategies driven by behaviour and morphology, and that neotropical species are not likely to be more inherently vulnerable to warming than temperate species.The research was supported by an ERC Starting Grant BABE 805189 (BLH, IF, IK and KS), Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute short-term fellowship (BLH), the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR 19-15645Y GPAL and 20-31295S YB), a Cambridge Conservation Initiative/Evolution Education Trust (CCI/EET) studentship (EAJ), the NERC Highlight topic GLiTRS project NE/V007173/1 (AJB), a Isaac Newton Trust/Wellcome Trust ISSF/University of Cambridge Joint Research Grants Scheme grant (RG89529) (AJB and ECT) and the Sistema Nacional de Investigación, SENACYT Panama (YB and GPAL)