Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 90, Issue 7, pp 318–321 | Cite as

Sumo wrestling in ants: major workers fight over male production in Acanthomyrmex ferox

  • Bruno Gobin
  • Fuminori Ito
Short Communication

Abstract

In the myrmicine ant Acanthomyrmex ferox, major workers have the same number of ovarioles as queens, thrice that of minor workers, making them well suited for egg-laying. In the queen's presence, infrequent aggression allows ranking of majors but they lay only unviable trophic eggs. Major workers engage each other, but not the minors, in antennal boxing and spectacular shaking contests, a novel interaction in ants. The absence of reversals allows a clear ranking of major workers. After queen removal, aggression becomes very frequent, but previous ranking is maintained. All majors start laying reproductive eggs although they show a skew in ovary development according to ranking. The dominant major, however, actively patrols the egg-pile and cannibalises eggs laid by subordinates.

Keywords

Minor Worker Ovary Development Agonistic Interaction Major Worker Queenright Coloni 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Hashim of the University of Malaya for permitting fieldwork at the Ulu Gombak field station. JSPS (T98.167) and Monbusho (08041136, 11691130) grants supported this work. B.G. is a postdoctoral fellow of the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders.

References

  1. Bourke AFG (1988) Worker reproduction in the higher eusocial Hymenoptera. Q Rev Biol 63:291–311Google Scholar
  2. Bourke AFG (1991) Queen behaviour, reproduction and egg cannibalism in multiple-queen colonies of the ant Leptothorax acervorum. Anim Behav 42:295–310Google Scholar
  3. Bourke AFG (1999) Colony size, social complexity and reproductive conflict in social insects. J Evol Biol 12:245–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke FM, Faulkes CG (2001) Intracolonial aggression in the eusocial naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. Anim Behav 61:311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gobin B, Ito F (2000) Queens and major workers of Acanthomyrmex ferox redistribute nutrients with trophic eggs. Naturwissenschaften 87:323–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gobin B, Peeters C, Billen J (1998) Production of trophic eggs by virgin workers in the ponerine ant Gnamptogenys menadensis. Physiol Entomol 23:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gobin B, Billen J, Peeters C (2001) Dominance interactions regulate mating in Gnamptogenys menadensis. Ethology 107:495–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gobin B, Heinze J, Strätz M, Roces F (2003) The energetic cost of reproductive conflicts in the ant Pachycondyla obscuricornis. J Insect Physiol 49: DOI 10.1016/s0022-1910(03)00111-2Google Scholar
  9. Heinze J, Hölldobler B, Peeters C (1994) Conflict and cooperation in ant societies. Naturwissenschaften 81:489–497Google Scholar
  10. Heinze J, Foitzik S, Oberstadt B, Rüppell O, Hölldobler B (1999a) A female caste specialized for the production of unfertilized eggs in the ant Crematogaster smithi. Naturwissenschaften 86:93–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinze J, Hölldobler B, Alpert GD (1999b) Reproductive conflict and division of labor in Eutetramorium mocquerysi, a myrmicine ant without morphologically distinct female reproductives. Ethology 105:701–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ito F (1993) 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 27:1315–1324Google Scholar
  13. Keller L, Reeve HK (1994) Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies. Trends Ecol Evol 9:98–102Google Scholar
  14. Liebig J, Peeters C, Oldham NJ, Markstädter C, Hölldobler B (2000) Are variations in cuticular hydrocarbons a reliable signal of fertility in the ant Harpegnathos saltator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:15013–15016Google Scholar
  15. Medeiros FNS, Lopes LE, Moutinho PRS, Oliveira PS, Hölldobler B (1992) Functional polygyny, agonistic interactions and reproductive dominance in the neotropical ant Odontomachus chelifer (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Ponerinae). Ethology 91:134–146Google Scholar
  16. Moffett MW (1985) Behavioral notes on the Asiatic harvesting ants Acanthomyrmex notabilis and A. ferox. Psyche 92:165–179Google Scholar
  17. Monnin T, Peeters C (1997) Cannibalism of subordinates' eggs in the monogynous queenless ant Dinoponera quadriceps. Naturwissenschaften 84:499–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Monnin T, Ratnieks FLW (1999) Reproduction versus work in queenless ants: when to join a hierarchy of hopeful reproductives? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:413–422Google Scholar
  19. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  20. Peeters C (1993) Monogyny and polygyny in ponerine ants with or without queens. In: Keller L (ed) Queen number and sociality in insects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 234–261Google Scholar
  21. Peeters C, Tsuji K (1993) Reproductive conflict among ant workers in Diacamma sp. from Japan: dominance and oviposition in the absence of the gamergate. Insectes Soc 40:119–136Google Scholar
  22. Ross K, Matthews R (1991) The social biology of wasps. Comstock (Cornell University Press), Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  23. Vehrencamp SL (1983) A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies. Anim Behav 31:667–689Google Scholar
  24. Walsum E van, Gobin B, Ito F, Billen J (1998) Worker reproduction in the ponerine ant Odontomachus simillimus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 32:427–440Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of EntomologyKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of AgricultureKagawa UniversityIkenobeJapan

Personalised recommendations