Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 411–416 | Cite as

The potential for worker reproduction in the ant Aphaenogaster cockerelli and its absence in the field

  • A. A. Smith
  • R. P. Overson
  • B. Hölldobler
  • J. Gadau
  • J. Liebig
Research Article

Abstract

A reproductive division of labor between subordinates and established reproductives is a hallmark of eusociality. In most groups, however, workers retain some reproductive capabilities. Across insect societies, measures of successful worker reproduction in the presence of a queen, with few exceptions, indicate that worker reproduction is kept at very low levels. There are, however, certain colony-level characteristics that may influence the degree to which worker reproduction is promoted, such as queen number, queen mating frequency, and physical presence of a queen in species with multiple nesting sites (polydomy). In this study, the level of worker reproduction in field colonies of the ant species Aphaenogaster cockerelli was measured. A. cockerelli is a monogynous and polydomous species, so worker reproduction across nesting sites was investigated. None of the 297 males sampled provided any evidence of worker reproduction. Worker reproduction would have been detectable if it was present at or above a level of 1.5 % of the total males per colony. An effective mating frequency for queens of this species was found to be 1.03. Although A. cockerelli colonies have many colony-level factors potentially promoting worker reproduction (workers with active, trophic egg-producing ovaries, a single singly-mated queen, workers who are physically separated from the queen), it is evident that worker reproduction is highly regulated. Synthesizing the extensive amount of policing and fertility signaling data previously reported on this species, A. cockerelli is presented as case study for how worker reproduction is repressed and cooperation is maintained in insect societies.

Keywords

Worker reproduction Policing Male parentage Cuticular hydrocarbons Polydomy 

References

  1. Banschbach V.S. and Herbers J.M. 1996. Complex colony structure in social insects. 2. Reproduction, queen-worker conflict, and levels of selection. Evolution 50: 298-307Google Scholar
  2. Barron A.B., Oldroyd B.P. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 2001. Worker reproduction in honey-bees (Apis) and the anarchic syndrome: a review. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 199-208Google Scholar
  3. Bourke A.F.G. 1988. Worker reproduction in the higher eusocial Hymenoptera. Q. Rev. Biol. 63: 291-311Google Scholar
  4. Bourke A.F.G., Green H.A.A. and Bruford M.W. 1997. Parentage, reproductive skew and queen turnover in a multiple-queen ant analysed with microsatellites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264: 277-283Google Scholar
  5. Brandvain Y. and Wade M.J. 2007. The evolution of competition and policing: opposing selection within and among groups. BMC Evol. Biol. 7: 203Google Scholar
  6. Brunner E., Trindl A., Falk K.H., Heinze J. and D’Ettorre P. 2005. Reproductive conflict in social insects: male production by workers in a slave-making ant. Evolution 59: 2480-2482Google Scholar
  7. Cerda X., Dahbi A. and Retana J. 2002. Spatial patterns, temporal variability, and the role of multi-nest colonies in a monogynous Spanish desert ant. Ecol. Entomol. 27: 7-15Google Scholar
  8. Choe J.C. 1988. Worker reproduction and social evolution in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). In: Advances in Myrmecology (Trager J.C., Ed). E.J. Brill, Leiden, New York. pp 163-187Google Scholar
  9. Cuvillier-Hot V., Cobb M., Malosse C. and Peeters C. 2001. Sex, age and ovarian activity affect cuticular hydrocarbons in Diacamma ceylonense, a queenless ant. J. Insect Physiol. 47: 485-493Google Scholar
  10. D’Ettorre P., Heinze J. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 2004. Worker policing by egg eating in the ponerine ant Pachycondyla inversa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271: 1427-1434Google Scholar
  11. Denis D., Pezon A. and Fresneau D. 2007. Reproductive allocation in multinest colonies of the ponerine ant Pachycondyla goeldii. Ecol. Entomol. 32: 289-295Google Scholar
  12. Dietemann V., Peeters C., Liebig J., Thivet V. and Hölldobler B. 2003. Cuticular hydrocarbons mediate discrimination of reproductives and nonreproductives in the ant Myrmecia gulosa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100: 10341-10346Google Scholar
  13. Endler A., Liebig J. and Hölldobler B. 2006. Queen fertility, egg marking and colony size in the ant Camponotus floridanus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59: 490-499Google Scholar
  14. Endler A., Liebig J., Schmitt T., Parker J.E., Jones G.R., Schreier P. and Hölldobler B. 2004. Surface hydrocarbons of queen eggs regulate worker reproduction in a social insect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101: 2945-2950Google Scholar
  15. Foster K.R. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 2001. Convergent evolution of worker policing by egg eating in the honeybee and common wasp. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 169-174Google Scholar
  16. Foster K.R., Ratnieks F.L.W. and Raybould A.F. 2000. Do hornets have zombie workers? Mol. Ecol. 9: 735-742Google Scholar
  17. Gobin B., Billen J. and Peeters C. 1999. Policing behaviour towards virgin egg layers in a polygynous ponerine ant. Anim. Behav. 58: 1117-1122Google Scholar
  18. Hammond R.L. and Keller L. 2004. Conflict over male parentage in social insects. PLoS Biol. 2: 1472-1482Google Scholar
  19. Hannonen M., Sledge M.F., Turillazzi S. and Sundström L. 2002. Queen reproduction, chemical signalling and worker behaviour in polygyne colonies of the ant Formica fusca. Anim. Behav. 64: 477-485Google Scholar
  20. Hartmann A., Wantia J., Torres J.A. and Heinze J. 2003. Worker policing without genetic conflicts in a clonal ant. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100: 12836-12840Google Scholar
  21. Helanterä H. and Sundström L. 2005. Worker reproduction in the ant Formica fusca. J. Evol. Biol. 18: 162-171Google Scholar
  22. Helanterä H. and Sundström L. 2007. Worker reproduction in Formica ants. Am. Nat. 170: E14-E25Google Scholar
  23. Herbers J.M., DeHeer C.J. and Foitzik S. 2001. Conflict over sex allocation drives conflict over reproductive allocation in perennial social insect colonies. Am. Nat. 158: 178-192Google Scholar
  24. Herbers J.M. and Mouser R.L. 1998. Microsatellite DNA markers reveal details of social structure in forest ants. Mol. Ecol. 7: 299-306Google Scholar
  25. Hölldobler B. and Carlin N. 1989. Colony founding, queen control and worker reproduction in the ant Aphaenogaster (=Novomessor) cockerelli (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 96: 131-151Google Scholar
  26. Ito F., Higashi S. and Maeta Y. 1988. Growth and development of Camponotus (Paramyrmamblys) kiusiuensis Santschi colonies (Hym. Formicidae). Insect. Soc. 35: 251-261Google Scholar
  27. Iwanishi S., Hasegawa E. and Ohkawara K. 2003. Worker oviposition and policing behaviour in the myrmicine ant Aphaenogaster smythiesi japonica Forel. Anim. Behav. 66: 513-519Google Scholar
  28. Johnson R.A. 2000. Seed-harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of North America: an overview of ecology and biogeography. Sociobiology 36: 89-122Google Scholar
  29. Kikuta N. and Tsuji K. 1999. Queen and worker policing in the monogynous and monandrous ant, Diacamma sp. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46: 180-189Google Scholar
  30. Liebig J. 2010. Hydrocarbon profiles indicate fertility and dominance status in ant, bee, and wasp colonies. In: Insect Hydrocarbons: Biology, Biochemistry, and Chemical Ecology (Blomquist G.J. and Bagnères A.G., Eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp 254-281Google Scholar
  31. Liebig J., Peeters C. and Hölldobler B. 1999. Worker policing limits the number of reproductives in a ponerine ant. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 1865-1870Google Scholar
  32. Liebig J., Peeters C., Oldham N.J., Markstädter C. and Hölldobler B. 2000. Are variations in cuticular hydrocarbons of queens and workers a reliable signal of fertility in the ant Harpegnathos saltator? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97:4124-4131Google Scholar
  33. Moilanen A., Sundström L. and Pedersen J.S. 2004. MATESOFT: a program for deducing parental genotypes and estimating mating system statistics in haplodiploid species. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4: 795-797Google Scholar
  34. Monnin T. 2006. Chemical recognition of reproductive status in social insects. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 43: 515-530Google Scholar
  35. Monnin T. and Peeters C. 1999. Dominance hierarchy and reproductive conflicts among subordinates in a monogynous queenless ant. Behav. Ecol. 10: 323-332Google Scholar
  36. Page R.E. and Erickson E.H. 1988. Reproduction by worker honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 23: 117-126Google Scholar
  37. Pamilo P. 1991. Evolution of colony characteristics in social insects. 2. Number of reproductive individuals. Am. Nat. 138: 412-433Google Scholar
  38. Peeters C. and Liebig J. 2009. Fertility signaling as a general mechanism of regulating reproductive division of labor in ants. In: Organization of Insect Societies: From Genome to Sociocomplexity (Gadau J. and Fewell J., Eds), Harvard University Press, Cambridge. pp 220-242Google Scholar
  39. Ratnieks F.L.W. 1988. Reproductive harmony via mutual policing by workers in eusocial Hymenoptera. Am. Nat. 132: 217-236Google Scholar
  40. Ratnieks F.L.W. 1993. Egg-laying, egg-removal, and ovary development by workers in queenright honey bee colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 191-198Google Scholar
  41. Ratnieks F.L.W., Foster K.R. and Wenseleers T. 2006. Conflict resolution in insect societies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 51: 581-608Google Scholar
  42. Ratnieks F.L.W. and Reeve H.K. 1992. Conflict in single-queen Hymenopteran societies - the structure of conflict and processes that reduce conflict in advanced eusocial species. J. Theor. Biol. 158: 33-65Google Scholar
  43. Smith A.A. and Haight K.L. 2008. Army ants as research and collection tools. J. Insect Sci. 8: 71Google Scholar
  44. Smith A.A., Hölldobler B. and Liebig J. 2008. Hydrocarbon signals explain the pattern of worker and egg policing in the ant Aphaenogaster cockerelli. J. Chem. Ecol. 34: 1275-1282Google Scholar
  45. Smith A.A., Hölldobler B. and Liebig J. 2009. Cuticular hydrocarbons reliably identify cheaters and allow enforcement of altruism in a social insect. Curr. Biol. 19: 78-81Google Scholar
  46. Smith A.A., Hölldobler B. and Liebig J. 2011. Reclaiming the crown: queen to worker conflict over reproduction in Aphaenogaster cockerelli. Naturwissenschaften 98: 237-240Google Scholar
  47. Smith A.A., Hölldobler B. and Liebig J. 2012. Queen-specific signals and worker punishment in the ant Aphaenogaster cockerelli: the role of the Dufour’s gland. Anim. Behav. 83: 587-593Google Scholar
  48. Smith C.R., Schoenick C., Anderson K.E., Gadau J. and Suarez A.V. 2007. Potential and realized reproduction by different worker castes in queen-less and queen-right colonies of Pogonomyrmex badius. Insect. Soc. 54: 260-267Google Scholar
  49. Snyder L.E. and Herbers J.M. 1991. Polydomy and sexual allocation ratios in the ant Myrmica punctiventris. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28: 409-415Google Scholar
  50. Tsuchida K., Saigo T., Nagata N., Tsujita S., Takeuchi K. and Miyano S. 2003. Queen-worker conflicts over male production and sex allocation in a primitively eusocial wasp. Evolution 57: 2365-2373Google Scholar
  51. Van Dyken J.D., Linksvayer T.A. and Wade M.J. 2011. Kin selection-mutation balance: a model for the origin, maintenance, and consequences of social cheating. Am. Nat. 177: 288-300Google Scholar
  52. van Zweden J.S., Furst M.A., Heinze J. and D’Ettorre P. 2007. Specialization in policing behaviour among workers in the ant Pachycondyla inversa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond B 274: 1421-1428Google Scholar
  53. Visscher P.K. 1989. A quantitative study of worker reproduction in honey bee colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25: 247-254Google Scholar
  54. Wenseleers T., Helanterä H., Hart A. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 2004. Worker reproduction and policing in insect societies: an ESS analysis. J. Evol. Biol. 17: 1035-1047Google Scholar
  55. Wenseleers T. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 2006. Comparative analysis of worker reproduction and policing in eusocial Hymenoptera supports relatedness theory. Am. Nat. 168: 163-179Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. A. Smith
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. P. Overson
    • 1
  • B. Hölldobler
    • 1
    • 3
  • J. Gadau
    • 1
  • J. Liebig
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.Biozentrum, Zoologie IIUniversität WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations