Gigantism in Insects

24 03 2012

There are several ecological and evolutionary patterns concerning body size. One of the most observeable ones, consistent among everything from bacteria to plants and animals is the temperature-size rule: species in colder environments tend to be larger, as are members of a population of the same species living in cold environments (Ashton, 2004); the latter is referred to as Bergmann’s Rule. They’re both enabled by phenotypic plasticity (Atkinson, 1995).

Another trend is the island rule, a term coined by Van Valen (1973), based on the formalisation by Foster (1964), itself based on the the proposal by Nopsca (1914), which in turn was based on observations by palaeontologists working on Mediterranean island mammals, e.g. Bate (1903). It states that small animals isolated on islands become bigger (island gigantism), while large animals become smaller (island dwarfism). The causal basis of this rule is mainly resource availability (McNab, 1999): originally large mammals will not find enough food to sustain their sizes, so smaller individuals will be selected for, while originally small mammals can reach larger sizes due to an abundance of food with lack of competition.

A look at the papers cited above in support of these rules reveals a very strong bias towards vertebrates. The insects of today are renowned for their miniaturisation, with the bulk of insect biodiversity lying in mm-sized beetles, hymenopterans and flies, with the average size of adult beetles being 4-5 mm (Mound & Waloff, 1978); the smallest insect known so far is the mymarid wasp Dicopomorpha echmepterygis, the male of which is ~139 µm large.

There have been several hypotheses proposed as to why insects are so small. Ecological possibilities include predation pressure from larger vertebrates keeping them small (Damuth, 1981). Biomechanical possibilities include the non-scalability of exoskeletons (Price, 1997). While both of these have undoubteably played some factor, it is oxygen levels that have been presumed to have played the largest role (Dudley, 1998). This idea can be tested using the fossil record – there were times in Earth’s history when the oxygen levels were higher than today. If the hypothesis is valid, then the insects of the time should be larger.

Back in the Carboniferous and Permian, insects were subject to gigantism, due to an atmosphere that was very high in oxygen (Graham et al., 1995) – they peaked at 35% at the Carboniferous-Permian boundary compared to today’s 21% (Berner & Canfield, 1989); see the diagram above (Dudley, 2000). It was in this time that the 70 cm large Protodonata pictured in this post lived.

Three orders of Palaeozoic insect, all of which went extinct in the end-Permian mass extinction, were particularly affected by gigantism: the Megasecoptera, the Palaeodictyoptera, and the Protodonata; and some members of other orders, for example the Ephemeroptera (45 cm wingspan mayflies!) and Meganeuridae, also had gigantic forms (Shear & Kukalová-Peck, 1990). It’s also important to note that not all insects back then were gigantic though, the majority were regular-sized.

As more evidence of oxygen’s role, we know that these gigantic forms went extinct as oxygen levels declined drastically in the Permian (Huey & Ward, 2005), and some gigantic forms re-evolved in the Cretaceous oxygen peak (Dudley, 2000).

We can speculate a bit about how these animals flew. One thing is clear: they had enough biomass to be able to support them, since the climates were tropical, with all-year-round growth. They might have had a much easier time getting off the ground, as the air density would have been higher, making lift production much easier (that is, if we assume that nitrogen and trace element partial pressures were similar to today’s level). What is definitely known is that these gigantic insects were putting their wings to good use – like modern odonates, the gigantic Palaeozoic insects also had plenty of veins in their wings, meaning they needed them to be strong and flexible, so they were actively hunting (or evading predators?) in mid-air. The high oxygen levels would have helped on the physiological level too: insect flight is an extremely oxygen-consuming effort, with oxygen consumption rising 100-fold, so having more oxygen in the atmosphere means that insects can fly longer without their muscles getting deprived of oxygen (Harrison et al., 2006). This is especially important for those insects that depend on their wing muscles instead of the thorax’s contraction for moving the wings, e.g. odonates. However, keep in mind that experiments on several insect orders in hyperoxic conditions have shown that there is no difference in their flight performance (Harrison et al., 2010).

Some authors even suggest that it was the high oxygen levels that allowed the evolution of insect flight in the first place (Graham et al., 1995). In the absence of a good stem-group insect fossil record, I would not add weight behind this hypothesis.

The mechanism behind the oxygen hypothesis’s validity is the way insects breathe, through the tracheal system (Kaiser et al., 2007). The system works almost completely by diffusion, and so as insects gets larger, its efficacy gets smaller, since there is no active process to let the air flow in; this is why large insects are nevertheless still narrow – they need to keep the muscle sites as close to the tracheae as possible. While larger insects have highly-sophisticated tracheal systems aimed at maximising the efficiency of the diffusion, there is a limit set by the exoskeleton – there is only so much space to build these tubes, since connective tissue is also needed. What the Kaiser et al. (2007) study showed was that when the beetles were raised in an atmosphere with higher-than-normal oxygen, the amount of energy invested in expanding the tracheal system decreases, despite attaining the same mass. Specifically, they showed that it’s not overall body size that matters, but the growth of certain body parts: the limiting factor is getting oxygen through all the constrictions and twistings of the tracheal system to the head; see figure above (especially the last line of the caption).

This subsequently means that if they were to expand their tracheal system, they could reach much larger sizes, and this is what happened in the Permian and Carboniferous – the oxygen was there, and so they could afford to reach large sizes without compromising their breathing systems. Today’s largest beetles are at the very limit allowed by current oxygen levels, 16 cm (Kaiser et al., 2007). Another limitation to consider is that the tracheal system can’t get too complicated, or else water balance regulation in the insect gets compromised, since the tracheae interfere with the haemolymph.

Keep in mind that recent research is revealing that insects also have an active breathing system (Socha et al., 2008). However, whether its powerful enough to play a significant role is still under debate.

Of course, if you want to test the effect of oxygen on insect size, it’s very easy to do it experimentally. This has been done with all sorts of insects, and the results are clear for most of them that higher oxygen levels lead to larger insect mass (figure above; Peck & Maddrell, 2005). Better yet, the larger sizes hold up even over multiple generations (Henry & Harrison, 2004), and might even become encoded for in the genome after several generations, regardless of oxygen levels (Klok & Harrison, 2009).

One factor that has been suggested as a limit on insect size even in hyperoxic conditions is exoskeletal growth – they can only grow so much. Lease & Wolf (2010) tested the investment in chitin in insects of all size ranges and found that investment in chitin – i.e. exoskeletal growth – scales isometrically: as the insect grows larger, so does the investment in chitin and growth, meaning this poses no limitation to insect size.

The case for linking oxygen levels and body size is solid and makes a lot of sense, and is currently accepted as the most parsimonious explanation for the giant Palaeozoic arthropods. In fact, it’s been intuitively known for a long time. For example, Rutten (1966) proposed that the Carboniferous had very high oxygen levels, basing his hypothesis not on geochemistry, but on the presence of these giant insects (this was later vindicated by geochemistry). However, there are still niggling uncertainties, mostly owing to imprecisions in palaeo-oxygen level measurements, and the slightly decoupled patterns of oxygen and body size fluctuations in the fossil record (Butterfield, 2009), a problem exacerbated by the patchiness of the fossil record of this time (Labandeira, 2005). These criticisms are valid. Okajima (2008) studied dragonfly size changes through geological time and found no correlation at all with oxygen levels. Either something else was happening in the Carboniferous, or there is some critical morphological/physiological difference between the Odonata and Protodonata that allowed the Protodonata to become gigantic.

Alternative explanations for the giant Palaeozoic insects include evolution of large size as a defence against the newly-evolved insectivorous tetrapods (Shear & Kukalová-Peck, 1990), or even as a result of an arms race (Peck & Munroe, 1999). Also, let’s not forget the driver of the oxygen spikes: primary producers (Berner et al., 2003). The gigantism may just have been a response to an abundance of food.

With all that said, all I can give as a sort of concensus is my own idea. That oxygen affects insect size is fairly obvious from the experimental data. The freak giants of the Carboniferous were just that – freaks. They were unique, and while the higher oxygen levels enabled their gigantism, the oxygen levels weren’t the drivers or the causes of the gigantism. I attribute that to ecology. Whether it was the abundance of food or coevolution, I won’t stick my neck out and say without more data.

Enough about the ancient stuff. It would be a mistake to think that insects don’t undergo gigantism in nature today. After all, the largest insects around are pretty large, with the aptly-named cerambycid beetle Titanus giganteus reaching up to 20 cm. Other beetles (e.g. Xixuthrus heros, Fiji, see Yanega et al. (2004)) fill out the top 5 of the largest insects, followed by orthopterans and odonates (the 10 cm long, 19 cm wingspan pseudostigmatid damselfly Megaloprepus caerulatus is the largest extant odonate, a condition attributed to both phylogeny and ecology (Groeneveld et al., 2007)). By contrast, mydaid flies, known for being large, “only” reach 5.5 cm.

In New Zealand, the geographic isolation and absence of rodents has led to some unique insect faunas exhibiting large sizes, with some gigantic beetles, orthopterans (weta!), phasmids and ghost moth species being the result (Daugherty et al., 1993). Weta especially have been a center of attention, with the suggestion that they’ve evolved to fill the same ecological space that rodents occupy in continents (Fleming, 1977). It’s worth noting that when mice were artificially introduced to New Zealand, the weta population declined greatly (McIntyre, 2001). Besides weta being the largest (and heaviest: Deinacrida heteracantha, recorded pregnant at 71g, but normally up to 32g) orthopterans, Gryllus alexandri (cricket, small Pacific island) and Thaumatogryllus conanti (tree cricket, Nihoa) are the largest of their subfamilies; the same is true for the Lasiorhynchus barbicornis, the largest ever weevil (New Zealand); Labidura herculeana (8 cm dermapteran, St. Helena) and Pharnacia serratipes (phasmid, Indonesia) are the largest known species in their orders (Chown & Gaston, 2010). These examples provide more evidence for the island rule being applicable to insects. Another aspect of the island rule, in addition to the gigantism, is that flying taxa (birds, insects) will evolve flightlessness, and this is exemplified by the 10 cm flightless Madagascar hissing cockroach, Gromphadorhina portentosa.

Of course, gigantism is a relative term, not an absolute one. In holometabolous insects (i.e. those with a larva-pupa-adult life cycle), final size is determined by the amount of food received in the larval stage. Life history adaptations may cause larvae of one species to gain more food than closely-related species. As an example, take Megaxenus aderid beetles. Aderids are generally pretty small, but many Megaxenus species are parasitic in termite nests, getting fed by the termites as if they were part of the colony. And it’s true that Megaxenus aderids are the largest of the aderids (Lawrence et al., 1990). A similar phenomenon can be observed in many conopid and pyrgotid flies, whose larvae are parasitic, hatching inside the bodies of large beetles and hymenopterans, eating them inside out; that’s a lot of food, and adult conopids and pyrgotids are pretty large. These can also be seen as gigantisms.

One parasite has taken advantage of this fact of insect physiology. The microsporidian Nosema whitei parasitises the larval red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum, and forces it to remain in the larval stage, when the larva can keep growing (Onstad & Maddox, 1990); in other words, the parasite induces gigantism in it, and kills it before pupation (Bass & Armstrong, 1992). This favours the parasite’s transmission (Forbes, 1993).


Ashton KG. 2004. Sensitivity of Intraspecific Latitudinal Clines of Body Size for Tetrapods to Sampling, Latitude and Body Size. Integrative & Comparative Biology 44, 403-412.

Atkinson D. 1995. Effects of temperature on the size of aquatic ectotherms: Exceptions to the general rule. Journal of Thermal Biology 20, 61-74.

Bass LK & Armstrong E. 1992. Nosema whitei: Effects on oocyte development and maturation in Tribolium castaneum. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 59, 115-123.

Bate DMA. 1903. Preliminary note on the discovery of a pigmy elephant in the Pleistocene of Cyprus. Proc. R. Soc. London 71, 498-500.

Berner RA & Canfield DE. 1989. A new model for atmospheric oxygen over Phanerozoic time. American Journal of Science 289, 333-361.

Berner RA, Beerling DJ, Dudley R, Robinson JM & Wildman Jr RA. 2003. PHANEROZOIC ATMOSPHERIC OXYGEN. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 31, 105-134.

Butterfield NJ. 2009. Oxygen, animals and oceanic ventilation: an alternative view. Geobiology 7, 1-7.

Chown SL & Gaston KJ. 2010. Body size variation in insects: a macroecological perspective. Biological Reviews 85, 139-169.

Damuth J. 1981. Population density and body size in mammals. Nature 290, 699-700.

Daugherrty CH, Gibbs GW & Hitchmough RA. 1993. Mega-island or micro-continent? New Zealand and its fauna. TrEE 8, 437-442.

Dudley R. 1998. Atmospheric oxygen, giant Paleozoic insects and the evolution of aerial locomotor performance. The Journal of Experimental Biology 201, 1043-1050.

Dudley R. 2000. The Evolutionary Physiology of Animal Flight: Paleobiological and Present Perspectives. Annual Review of Physiology 62, 135-155.

Fleming CA. 1977. The history of life in New Zealand forests. New Zealand Journal of Forestry 22, 249-262.

Forbes MRL. 1993. Parasitism and host reproductive effort. Oikos 67, 444-450.

Foster JB. 1964. Evolution of Mammals on Islands. Nature 202, 234-235.

Graham JB, Dudley R, Aguilar NM & Gans C. 1995. Implications Of The Late Paleozoic Oxygen Pulse For Physiology And Evolution. Nature 375, 117-120.

Groeneveld LF, Clausnitzer V & Hadrys H. 2007. Convergent evolution of gigantism in damselflies of Africa and South America? Evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42, 339-346.

Harrison J, Frazier MR, Henry JR, Kaiser A, Klok CJ & Rascón B. 2006. Responses of terrestrial insects to hypoxia or hyperoxia. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology 154, 4-17.

Harrison JF, Kaiser A & VandenBrooks JM. 2010. Atmospheric oxygen level and the evolution of insect body size. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 1937-1946.

Henry JR & Harrison JF. 2004. Plastic and evolved responses of larval tracheae and mass to varying atmospheric oxygen content in Drosophila melanogaster. The Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 3559-3567.

Huey RB & Ward PD. 2005. Hypoxia, Global Warming, and Terrestrial Late Permian Extinctions. Science 308, 398-401.

Kaiser A, Klok CJ, Socha JJ, Lee W-K, Quinlan MC & Harrison JF. 2007. Increase in tracheal investment with beetle size supports hypothesis of oxygen limitation on insect gigantism. PNAS 104, 13198-13203.

Klok CJ & Harrison JF. 2009. Atmospheric hypoxia limits selection for large body size in insects. PLoS ONE 4, e3876.

Labandeira CC. 2005. The Fossil Record of Insect Extinction: New Approaches and Future Directions. American Entomologist 51, 14-29.

Lawrence JF, Kistner DH & Pasteels JM. 1990. A new genus and three new species of Termitophilous Aderidae (Coleoptera) from Australia, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines, with notes on their biology. Invertebrate Systematics 4, 643-654.

Lease HM & Wolf BO. 2010. Exoskeletal chitin scales isometrically with body size in terrestrial insects. Journal of Morphology 271, 759-768.

McIntyre M. 2001. The ecology of some large weta species in New Zealand. In: Field LH (ed.). The Biology of Wetas, King Crickets and Their Allies.

McNab BK. 1999. On the Comparative Ecological and Evolutionary Significance of Total and Mass‐Specific Rates of Metabolism. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 72, 642-644.

Mound LA & Waloff N (eds.). 1978. Diversity of Insect Faunas.

Nopsca F. 1914. Über das Vorkommen der Dinosaurier in Siebenbürgen. Verhandlungen der zoologische-botanischen Gesellschaft, Wien 54, 12-14.

Okajima R. 2008. The controlling factors limiting maximum body size of insects. Lethaia 41, 423-430.

Onstad DW & Maddox JV. 1990. Simulation model of Tribolium confusum and its pathogen, Nosema whitei. Ecological Modelling 51, 143-160.

Peck SB & Munroe E. 1999. Biogeography and evolutionary history: Wide-scale and long-term patterns of insects. In: Haffaker CB & Gutierrez AP (eds). Ecological Entomology, 2nd ed.

Peck LS & Maddrell SHP. 2005. Limitation of size by hypoxia in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Experimental Zoology A 303A, 968-975.

Price PW. 1997. Insect Ecology, 3rd ed.

Rutten MG. 1966. Geologic data on atmospheric history. Palaeo3 2, 47-57.

Shear WA & Kukalová-Peck J. 1990. The ecology of Paleozoic terrestrial arthropods: the fossil evidence. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68, 1807-1834.

Socha JJ, Lee W-K, Harrison JF, Waters JS, Fezzaa K & Westneat MW. 2008. Correlated patterns of tracheal compression and convective gas exchange in a carabid beetle. The Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 3409-3420.

Van Valen L. 1973. Pattern and the balance of nature. Evolutionary Theory 1, 31-49.

Yanega D, Olson D, Schute S & Komiya Z. 2004. The Xixuthrus species of Fiji (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae). Zootaxa 777, 1-10.

Research Blogging necessities :)

Harrison, J., Kaiser, A., & VandenBrooks, J. (2010). Atmospheric oxygen level and the evolution of insect body size Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277 (1690), 1937-1946 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0001
Kaiser, A., Klok, C., Socha, J., Lee, W., Quinlan, M., & Harrison, J. (2007). Increase in tracheal investment with beetle size supports hypothesis of oxygen limitation on insect gigantism Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (32), 13198-13203 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0611544104
Shear, W., & Kukalová-Peck, J. (1990). The ecology of Paleozoic terrestrial arthropods: the fossil evidence Canadian Journal of Zoology, 68 (9), 1807-1834 DOI: 10.1139/z90-262



6 responses

30 06 2012
The Scientific Method, Exemplified By Palaeontology « Teaching Biology

[...] For more on gigantism in insects: This post. [...]

13 08 2012
Papers of the Week « Teaching Biology

[...] I wrote in this post, the biological marvel of modern insects is their miniaturisation that tests the limits of [...]

9 09 2012
Papers of the Week « Teaching Biology

[...] like arthropods aren’t the only organisms who become gigantic with more oxygen. This paper shows that fusulinid forms do it [...]

26 11 2012
How do insects breathe? An outline of the tracheal system « Teaching Biology

[...] – this is how an insect breathes, by diffusion. It’s also one of the major reasons behind the limit of insect size, and the converse is that the smallest insects don’t need a full tracheal system (e.g. the [...]

24 07 2013
Indefinite Blog Hiatus | Teaching Biology

[…] Gigantism in Insects […]

14 11 2013
The Scientific Method, Exemplified By Palaeontology |

[…] For more on gigantism in insects: This post. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 357 other followers

%d bloggers like this: