Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 179–187 | Cite as

Forced associations by young queens of the harvester ant Messor semirufus during colony founding

  • M. MotroEmail author
  • U. Motro
  • D. Cohen
Research Article


After landing at the end of their nuptial flight, young queens of the harvester ant Messor semirufus search for a suitable nesting site and dig a burrow. After 3 months in the burrow, they start laying eggs, and nurse their first brood of workers alone. Field observations indicate that a few newly dug burrows contain more than one queen. Laboratory experiments were conducted in order to discover why these young queens’ associations form. We found that groups do not exhibit any productive advantage over single-founding queens, either with respect to progeny number, or with respect to the time until the first eggs are laid. Groups have a slower rate of nest digging than single queens, and mortality rate is considerably higher for queens in groups than for single queens. From the initiation of the group, queen interactions involve aggression and a behavioral hierarchy, with a prior-residence advantage. The tendency to form groups is stronger if queens density is greater and if digging conditions, characterized by soil hardness, are less favorable. We conclude that foundress associations in M. semirufus are in fact the result of nest invasions in an attempt to displace the resident queen. These are motivated by the high cost of the search for a suitable nesting site and of the digging of the nest.


Colony founding Facultative sociality Messor semirufus Pleometrosis Prior-residence advantage Queen associations 



We thank Prof. Michael D. Breed, two anonymous reviewers, and the late Dr. Raja Szlep for important comments and suggestions.


  1. Agresti A (1992) A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Stat Sci 7:131–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartz SH, Hӧlldobler B (1982) Colony founding in Myrmecocystus mimicus wheeler and the evolution of foundress associations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernasconi G, Strassmann JE (1999) Cooperation among unrelated individuals: the ant foundress case. TREE 14:477–482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cahan S, Helms KR, Rissing SW (1998) An abrupt transition in colony founding behaviour in the ant Messor pergandei. Anim Behav 55:1583–1594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cahan S, Julian GE (1999) Fitness consequences of cooperative colony founding in the desert leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex versicolor. Behav Ecol 10:585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark RM, Fewell JH (2014) Social dynamics drive selection in cooperative associations of ant queens. Behav Ecol 25:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Helms Cahan S, Fewell JH (2004) Division of labor and the evolution of task sharing in queen associations of the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hӧlldobler B, Wilson EO (1977) The number of queens: an important trait in ant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 64:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hӧlldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jeanson R, Fewell JH (2008) Influence of the social context on division of labor in ant foundress associations. Behav Ecol 19:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson RA (2000) Water loss in desert ants: caste variation and the effect of cuticle abrasion. Physiol Entomol 25:48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson RA (2004) Colony founding by pleometrosis in the semiclaustral seed-harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Anim Behav 68:1189–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lehmann EL (1975) Nonparametrics: statistical methods based on ranks. Holden–Day, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  14. Maynard Smith J (1977) Parental investment: A prospective analysis. Anim Behav 25:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1977) The logic of asymmetric contests. Nature 24:159–175Google Scholar
  16. Mintzer A (1979) Colony foundation and pleometrosis in Camponotus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Pan-Pac Entomol 55:81–89Google Scholar
  17. Mintzer A (1987) Primary polygyny in the ant Atta texana: number and weight of females and colony foundation success in the laboratory. Insectes Soc 34:108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Motro M, Motro U, Cohen D (2016) Decision making by young queens of the harvester ant Messor semirufus while searching for a suitable nesting site. Insectes Soc 63:615–622Google Scholar
  19. Nonacs P (1992) Queen condition and alate density affect pleometrosis in the ant Lasius pallitarsis. Insectes Soc 39:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Overson R, Gadau J, Clark RM, Pratt SC, Fewell JH (2014) Behavioral transitions with the evolution of cooperative nest founding by harvester ant queens. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pfenning DW (1995) Absence of joint nest advantage in desert seed harvester ants: evidence from a field experiment. Anim Behav 49:567–575Google Scholar
  22. Reber A, Meunier J, Chapuisat M (2010) Flexible colony-founding strategies in a socially polymorphic ant. Anim Behav 79:467–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rissing SW, Pollock GB (1986) Social interaction among pleometrotic queens of Veromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) during colony foundation. Anim Behav 34:226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rissing SW, Pollock GB (1987) Queen aggression, pleometrotic advantage and brood raiding in the ant Veromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Anim Behav 35:975–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwarz MP, Tierney SM, Rehan SM, Chenoweth LB, Cooper SJB (2011) The evolution of eusociality in allodapine bees: workers began by waiting. Biol Lett 7:277–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Thorne B (1982) Multiple primary queens in termites: phyletic distribution, ecological context, and a comparison to polygyny in Hymenoptera. In: Breed MD, Michener CD, Evans HE (eds) The biology of social insects. Westview, Boulder, pp 206–211Google Scholar
  27. Tschinkel WR (1993) Resource allocation, brood reduction and cannibalism during colony founding in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:209–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tschinkel WR (1998) An experimental study of pleometrotic colony founding in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta: what is the basis for association? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tschinkel WR, Howard DF (1983) Colony founding by pleometrosis in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.David Yellin Academic College of EducationJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, Department of Statistics, and The Federmann Center for the Study of RationalityThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, and The Federmann Center for the Study of RationalityThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations