Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 309–317 | Cite as

Evolution of conflict and cooperation of nematodes associated with solitary and social sweat bees

  • Q. S. McFrederick
  • T. H. Roulston
  • D. R. Taylor
Research Article

Abstract

Parasites and mutualists can wield great influence on the fitness of social organisms, yet the effect that the host’s social structure has on the evolution of parasites, commensals, and mutualists (collectively referred to here as symbionts) is poorly known. Evolutionary theory suggests that host social structure may select for more cooperative symbiont strains in comparison to symbionts of solitary hosts. We compared the productivity of one social and one solitary bee species (Halictus ligatus and Augochlora pura) in the family Halictidae with and without the presence of their nematode symbionts (Acrostichus halicti and Acrostichus puri, respectively). We measured the number of offspring produced, the number of cells provisioned, and nesting activity (for Au. pura) to test the hypothesis that symbionts specific to a social host exhibit greater cooperation than symbionts specific to a solitary host. Infected and uninfected nests of both species did not differ in any fitness estimates indicating that: (1) Acrostichus species are commensals, or at least lack large fitness effects on their hosts, and (2) the transition from association with a solitary host to association with a social host that lives in small colonies does not have detectable effects on the evolution of conflict and cooperation in this system. This is the first comparative study to test the idea that host social structure may influence the evolution of symbionts; future work should compare closely related mutualists and parasites of more advanced eusocial insects to mutualists and parasites of solitary insects.

Keywords

Primitive eusociality Symbiont evolution Halictidae Acrostichus Augochlora pura Halictus ligatus 

Supplementary material

40_2013_295_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (142 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 142 kb)

References

  1. Abramoff M.D., Magalhaes P.J. and Ram S.J. 2004. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Intl. 11: 36–42Google Scholar
  2. Alizon S., Hurford A., Mideo N. and Van Baalen M. 2009. Virulence evolution and the tradeoff hypothesis: history, current state of affairs and the future. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 245–259Google Scholar
  3. Barrows E.M. 1974. Aggregation behavior and response to sodium chloride in females of a solitary bee, Augochlora pura (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Fla. Entomol. 57: 189–193Google Scholar
  4. Berghoff S.M., Wurst E., Ebermann E., Sendova-Franks A.B., Rettenmeyer C.W. and Franks N.R. 2009. Symbionts of societies that fission: mites as guests or parasites of army ants. Ecol. Entomol. 34: 684–695Google Scholar
  5. Brady S.G., Sipes S., Pearson A. and Danforth B.N. 2006. Recent and simultaneous origins of eusociality in halictid bees. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 273: 1643–1649Google Scholar
  6. Bronstein J.L. 1994. Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 214–217Google Scholar
  7. Bull J.J., Molineux I.J. and Rice W.R. 1991. Selection of benevolence in a host-parasite system. Evolution 45: 875–882Google Scholar
  8. Bull J.J. and Rice W.R. 1991. Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of co-operation. J. Theor. Biol. 149: 63–74Google Scholar
  9. Cane J.H. 1981. Dufour’s gland secretion in the cell linings of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). J. Chem. Ecol. 7: 403–410Google Scholar
  10. Danforth B.N. and Eickwort G.C. 1997. The evolution of social behavior in the augochlorine sweat bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) based on a phylogenetic analysis of the genera. In: The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids (Choe J.C. and Crespi B.J., Eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp 270–292Google Scholar
  11. Ewald P.W. 1987. Transmission modes and evolution of the parasitism-mutualism continuum. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 503: 295–306Google Scholar
  12. Fine P.E.M. 1975. Vectors and vertical transmission: an epidemiologic perspective. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 266: 173–194Google Scholar
  13. Giblin R. and Kaya H. 1984. Aduncospiculum halicti n. gen., n. sp. (Diplogasterida: Diplogasteroididae), an associate of bees in the genus Halictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Rev. Nematol. 7: 189–197Google Scholar
  14. Giblin-Davis R.M., Norden B.B., Batra S.W.T. and Eickwort G.C. 1990. Commensal nematodes in the glands, genitalia, and brood cells of bees (Apoidea). J. Nematol. 22: 150–161Google Scholar
  15. Hughes D., Pierce N. and Boomsma J.J. 2008. Social insect symbionts: evolution in homeostatic fortresses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23: 672–677Google Scholar
  16. Kanzaki N., Giblin-Davis R.M., Zeng Y., Ye W., Center B.J. and Thomas W.K. 2010. Acrostichus puri n. sp. (Nematoda: Diplogastridae), a phoretic associate of Augochlora pura mosieri Cockerell (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Nematol. 12: 49–64Google Scholar
  17. May D.G.K. 1974. An investigation of the chemical nature and origin of the waxy lining of the brood cells of a sweat bee, Augochlora pura (Hymenoptera, Halictidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 47: 504–516Google Scholar
  18. McFrederick Q.S. and Taylor D.R. 2013. Evolutionary history of nematodes associated with sweat bees. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 66: 847–856Google Scholar
  19. Michener C.D. 1974. The Social Behavior of the Bees. The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusets.Google Scholar
  20. Packer L. and Knerer G. 1986. An analysis of variation in the nest architecture of Halictus ligatus in Ontario. Insect. Soc. 33: 190–205Google Scholar
  21. Plateaux-Quénu C. 1962. Biology of Halictus marginatus Brulle. J. Apic. Res. 1: 41–51Google Scholar
  22. Poinar G.O. and Herre E.A. 1991. Speciation and adaptive radiation in the fig wasp nematode Parasitodiplogaster (Diplogasteridae: Rhabditida) in Panama. Rev. Nematol. 14: 361–374Google Scholar
  23. Quinn G.P. and Keough M.J. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  24. R Core Development Team. 2009. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  25. Richards M. and Packer L. 1998. Demography and relatedness in multiple-foundress nests of the social sweat bee, Halictus ligatus. Insect. Soc. 45: 97–109Google Scholar
  26. Richards M.H. and Packer L. 1995. Annual variation in survival and reproduction of the primitively eusocial sweat bee Halictus ligatus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Can. J. Zool. 73: 933–941Google Scholar
  27. Roulston T.H. and Cane J.H. 2002. The effect of pollen protein concentration on body size in the sweat bee Lasioglossum zephyrum (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Evol. Ecol. 16: 49–65Google Scholar
  28. Sachs J.L., Mueller U.G., Wilcox T.P. and Bull J.J. 2004. The evolution of cooperation. Q. Rev. Biol. 79: 135–160Google Scholar
  29. Sachs J.L., Skophammer R.G. and Regus J.U. 2011. Evolutionary transitions in bacterial symbiosis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108: 10800–10807Google Scholar
  30. Shaw R.G., Geyer C.J., Wagenius S., Hangelbroek H.H. and Etterson J.R. 2008. Unifying life history analyses for inference of fitness and population growth. Am. Nat. 172: E35–E47Google Scholar
  31. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. WH Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Stockhammer K.A. 1966. Nesting habits and life cycle of a sweat bee, Augochlora pura (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 39: 157–192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Q. S. McFrederick
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. H. Roulston
    • 3
  • D. R. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Section of Integrative BiologyUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.Blandy Experimental Farm, Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of VirginiaBoyceUSA

Personalised recommendations