Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 533–539 | Cite as

Aggression regulates monogyny in non-mutilating Diacamma ants

Research Article


In queenless species of ants, colonies consist of workers with equivalent reproductive potentials. Aggressive interactions regulate fertility and sexual activity. The genus Diacamma is unusual, because monogyny is regulated by mutilation (i.e., removal of a pair of tiny innervated thoracic appendages) of all young workers. One exception is the ‘nilgiri’ population from south India, where only 6 % of workers were mutilated in ten field colonies (range 2.8–12.5 %). Nonetheless, all colonies were monogynous. To investigate the behavioural mechanisms underlying the replacement of the ‘gamergate’ (mated reproductive worker) in ‘nilgiri’, we experimentally divided colonies in two. In the groups lacking the gamergate, aggression soon started among the younger workers. One of these workers exhibited a dominant posture after 1–2 days, and this new alpha started ovipositing and sexual calling within 2–3 weeks. When she was confronted with the original gamergate, olfactory recognition occurred immediately, and this sometimes led to a characteristic dominance behaviour (‘sting smearing’). The fate of 85 young workers of known age was studied: they were usually the target of aggression from either gamergates or new alphas. Their gemmae elicited attention, although these were seldom removed. A small change in the gemma pheromone apparently caused an evolutionary switch from mutilation (as occurs in the very closely related D. ceylonense) to a reversible regulation of reproduction in ‘nilgiri’.


Reproduction Gamergate Gemma Dominance Ponerinae 


  1. Allard D., Ito F., Gobin B., Tsuji K. and Billen J. 2005. Differentiation of the reproductive tract between dominant and subordinate workers in the Japanese queenless ant Diacamma sp. Acta Zool. (Stockholm) 86: 159-166.Google Scholar
  2. André J.B., Peeters C. and Doums C. 2001. Serial polygyny and colony genetic structure in the monogynous queenless ant Diacamma cyaneiventre. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 72-80.Google Scholar
  3. Baratte S., Cobb M. and Peeters C. 2006. Reproductive conflicts and mutilation in queenless Diacamma ants. Anim. Behav. 72: 305-311.Google Scholar
  4. Baudry E., Peeters C., Brazier L., Veuille M. and Doums C. 2003. Shift in the behaviours regulating monogyny is associated with high genetic differentiation in the queenless ant Diacamma ceylonense. Insect. Soc. 50: 390-397.Google Scholar
  5. Bernasconi G. and Strassmann J. E. 1999. Cooperation among unrelated individuals: the ant foundress case. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 477-482.Google Scholar
  6. 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: 485-493.Google Scholar
  7. Cuvillier-Hot V., Gadagkar R., Peeters C. and Cobb M. 2002. Regulation of reproduction in a queenless ant: aggression, pheromones and reduction in conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 1295-1300.Google Scholar
  8. Cuvillier-Hot V., Lenoir A., Crewe R., Malosse C. and Peeters C. 2004. Fertility signaling and reproductive skew in queenless ants. Anim. Behav. 68: 1209-1219.Google Scholar
  9. Fukumoto Y., Abe T. and Taki A. 1989. A novel form of colony organization in the “queenless” ant Diacamma rugosum. Physiol. Ecol. Japan 26: 55-61.Google Scholar
  10. Gill R.J. and Hammond R.L. 2011. Workers determine queen inheritance of reproduction in a functionally monogynous ant population. Anim. Behav. 82: 119-129.Google Scholar
  11. Gobin B., Billen J. and Peeters C. 1999. Policing behaviour towards virgin egg layers in a polygynous ponerine ant. Anim. Behav. 58: 1117-1122.Google Scholar
  12. Gronenberg W. and Peeters C. 1993. Central projections of the sensory hairs on the gemma of the ant Diacamma: substrate for behavioural modulation? Cell Tissue Res. 273: 401-415.Google Scholar
  13. Higashi S., Ito F., Sugiura N. and Ohkawara K. 1994. Worker’s age regulates the linear dominance hierarchy in the queenless ponerine ant, Pachycondyla sublaevis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Anim. Behav. 47: 179-184.Google Scholar
  14. Hölldobler B., Obermayer M. and Peeters C. 1996. Comparative study of the metatibial gland in ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Zoomorphology 116: 157-167.Google Scholar
  15. Ito F. 1993a. Social organization in a primitive ponerine ant: queenless reproduction, dominance hierarchy and functional polygyny in Amblyopone sp. (reclinata group) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ponerinae). J. Nat. Hist. 27: 1315-1324.Google Scholar
  16. Ito F. 1993b. Functional monogyny and dominance hierarchy in the queenless ponerine ant Pachycondyla (= Bothroponera) sp. in West Java, Indonesia (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Ponerinae). Ethol. 95: 126-140.Google Scholar
  17. Ito F. and Higashi S. 1991. A linear dominance hierarchy regulating reproduction and polyethism of the queenless ant Pachycondyla sublaevis. Naturwissenschaften 78: 80-82.Google Scholar
  18. Kawabata S. and Tsuji K. 2005. The policing behavior ‘immobilization’ towards ovary-developed workers in the ant, Diacamma sp. from Japan. Insect. Soc. 52: 89-95.Google Scholar
  19. Keller L. 1995. Social life: the paradox of multiple-queen colonies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 355-360.Google Scholar
  20. 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: 1865-1870.Google Scholar
  21. Monnin T. and Peeters C. 1999. Dominance hierarchy and reproductive conflicts among subordinates in a monogynous queenless ant. Behav. Ecol. 10: 323-332.Google Scholar
  22. Monnin T. and Peeters C. 2008. How many gamergates is an ant queen worth? Naturwissenschaften 95: 109-116.Google Scholar
  23. Monnin T., Ratnieks F., Jones G. and Beard R. 2002. Pretender punishment induced by chemical signalling in a queenless ant. Nature 419: 61-65.Google Scholar
  24. Peeters C. and Billen J. 1991. A novel exocrine gland inside the thoracic appendages (“gemmae”) of the queenless ant Diacamma australe. Experientia 47: 229-231.Google Scholar
  25. Peeters C., Billen J. and Hölldobler B. 1992. Alternative dominance mechanisms regulating monogyny in the queenless ant genus Diacamma. Naturwissenschaften 79: 572-573.Google Scholar
  26. Peeters C. and Higashi S. 1989. Reproductive dominance controlled by mutilation in the queenless ant Diacamma australe. Naturwissenschaften 76: 177-180.Google Scholar
  27. Peeters C. and Molet M. 2010. Colonial reproduction and life histories. In: Ant Ecology (Lach L., Parr C. and Abbott K., Eds). Oxford University Press. pp 159-176.Google Scholar
  28. 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 Socio-Complexity (Gadau J. and Fewell J., Eds). Harvard University Press, Cambridge. pp 220-242.Google Scholar
  29. Peeters C. and Tsuji K. 1993. Reproductive conflict among ant workers in Diacamma sp. from Japan: dominance and oviposition in the absence of the gamergate. Insect. Soc. 40: 119-136.Google Scholar
  30. Ramaswamy K., Peeters C., Yuvana S., Varghese T., Pradeep H., Dietemann V., Karpakakunjaram V., Cobb M. and Gadagkar R. 2004. Social mutilation in the ponerine ant Diacamma: cues originate in the victims. Insect. Soc. 51: 410-413.Google Scholar
  31. Sommer K., Hölldobler B. and Rembold H. 1993. Behavioral and physiological aspects of reproductive control in a Diacamma species from Malaysia (Formicidae, Ponerinae). Ethology 94: 162-170.Google Scholar
  32. Viginier B., Peeters C., Brazier L. and Doums C. 2004. Very low genetic variability in the Indian queenless ant Diacamma indicum suggests history of bottlenecks. Mol. Ecol. 13: 2095-2100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Ecologie et EvolutionCNRS UMR 7625, Université Pierre et Marie CurieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations