Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, 98:361 | Cite as

Workers select mates for queens: a possible mechanism of gene flow restriction between supercolonies of the invasive Argentine ant

  • Eiriki Sunamura
  • Sugihiko Hoshizaki
  • Hironori Sakamoto
  • Takeshi Fujii
  • Koji Nishisue
  • Shun Suzuki
  • Mamoru Terayama
  • Yukio Ishikawa
  • Sadahiro Tatsuki
Original Paper

Abstract

Some invasive ants form large networks of mutually non-aggressive nests, i.e., supercolonies. The Argentine ant Linepithema humile forms much larger supercolonies in introduced ranges than in its native range. In both cases, it has been shown that little gene flow occurs between supercolonies of this species, though the mechanism of gene flow restriction is unknown. In this species, queens do not undertake nuptial flight, and males have to travel to foreign nests and cope with workers before gaining access to alien queens. In this study, we hypothesized that male Argentine ants receive interference from workers of alien supercolonies. To test this hypothesis, we conducted behavioral and chemical experiments using ants from two supercolonies in Japan. Workers attacked males from alien supercolonies but not those from their own supercolonies. The level of aggression against alien males was similar to that against alien workers. The frequency of severe aggression against alien males increased as the number of recipient workers increased. Cuticular hydrocarbon profiles, which serve as cues for nestmate recognition, of workers and males from the same supercolony were very similar. Workers are likely to distinguish alien males from males of their own supercolony using the profiles. It is predicted that males are subject to considerable aggression from workers when they intrude into the nests of alien supercolonies. This may be a mechanism underlying the restricted gene flow between supercolonies of Argentine ants. The Argentine ant may possess a distinctive reproductive system, where workers participate in selecting mates for their queens. We argue that the aggression of workers against alien males is a novel form of reproductive interference.

Keywords

Aggression Biological invasions Gene flow Linepithema humile Reproductive interference Supercolony 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Wataru Kojima, Peter Nonacs, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for young scientists to ES (20-6386) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Supplementary material

114_2011_778_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (32 kb)
Online resource 1 Cuticular hydrocarbons of workers and males from two supercolonies (“Japanese main” and “Kobe C”) of the Argentine ant. Fifty-four compounds were detected with GC/MS. Mean ± SD (%) of each compound is shown for workers and males. Compounds which highly contributed to the first and second principal components in the principal component analysis (Fig. 3) are indicated by plus sign and double plus sign, respectively. (PDF 32 kb)

References

  1. Bates D, Sarkar D (2006) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.995-2. http://www.rproject.org. Accessed 17 Jan 2006
  2. Berghoff SM, Kronauer DJC, Edwards KJ, Franks NR (2008) Dispersal and population structure of a New World predator, the army ant Eciton burchellii. J Evol Biol 21:1125–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt M, van Wilgenburg E, Sulc R, Shea KJ, Tsutsui ND (2009) The scent of supercolonies: the discovery, synthesis and behavioural verification of ant colony recognition cues. BMC Biol 7:71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buczkowski G, Vargo E, Silverman J (2004) The diminutive supercolony: the Argentine ants of the southeastern United States. Mol Ecol 13:2235–2242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corin SE, Abbott KA, Ritchie PA, Lester PJ (2007) Large scale unicoloniality: the population and colony structure of the invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) in New Zealand. Insectes Soc 54:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cournault L, de Biseau J-C (2009) Hierarchical perception of fertility signals and nestmate recognition cues in two dolichoderine ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1635–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dietemann V, Peeters C, Liebig J, Thivet V, Hölldobler B (2003) Cuticular hydrocarbons mediate discrimination of reproductives and nonreproductives in the ant Myrmecia gulosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10341–10346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drescher J, Blüthgen N, Schmitt T, Bühler J, Feldhaar H (2010) Societies drifting apart? Behavioural, genetic and chemical differentiation between supercolonies in the yellow crazy ant Anoplolepis gracilipes. PLoS ONE 5:e13581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franks NR, Hölldobler B (1987) Sexual competition during colony reproduction in army ants. Biol J Linn Soc 30:229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giraud T, Pedersen JS, Keller L (2002) Evolution of supercolonies: the Argentine ants of southern Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:6075–6079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene MJ, Gordon DM (2007) Structural complexity of chemical recognition cues affects the perception of group membership in the ants Linepithema humile and Aphaenogaster cookerelli. J Exp Biol 210:897–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gröning J, Hochkirch A (2008) Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol 83:257–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helanterä H, Strassmann JE, Carrillo J, Queller DC (2009) Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going? Trend Ecol Evol 24:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heller NE (2004) Colony structure in introduced and native populations of the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. Insectes Soc 51:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hojo MK, Wada-Katsumata A, Akino T, Yamaguchi S, Ozaki M, Yamaoka R (2009) Chemical disguise as particular caste of host ants in the ant inquiline parasite Niphanda fusca (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Proc R Soc B 276:551–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The Ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Holway DA (1999) Competitive mechanism underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80:238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holway DA, Suarez AV, Case TJ (1998) Loss of intraspecific aggression in the success of a widespread invasive social insect. Science 282:949–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holzer B, Keller L, Chaupuisat M (2009) Genetic clusters and sex-biased gene flow in a unicolonial Formica ant. BMC Evol Biol 9:69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingram KK, Gordon DM (2003) Genetic analysis of dispersal dynamics in an invading population of Argentine ants. Ecology 84:2832–2842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaquiéry J, Vogel V, Keller L (2005) Multilevel genetic analyses of two supercolonies of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. Mol Ecol 14:589–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller L, Passera L (1992) Mating system, optimal number of matings, and sperm transfer in the Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kishi S, Nishida T, Tsubaki Y (2009) Reproductive interference determines persistence and exclusion in species interactions. J Anim Ecol 78:1043–1049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liang D, Silverman J (2000) “You are what you eat”: diet modifies cuticular hydrocarbons and nestmate recognition in the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. Naturwissenschaften 87:412–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liang D, Blomquist GJ, Silverman J (2001) Hydrocarbon-released nestmate aggression in the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, following encounters with insect prey. Comp Biochem Physiol B 129:871–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markin GP (1970) The seasonal life cycle of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in southern California. Ann Entomol Soc Am 63:1238–1242Google Scholar
  28. Martin S, Drijfhout F (2009) A review of ant cuticular hydrocarbons. J Chem Ecol 35:1151–1161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moffett MW (2010) Adventures among ants. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  30. Passera L, Keller L (1990) Loss of mating flight and shift in the pattern of carbohydrate storage in sexuals of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Comp Physiol B 160:207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Passera L, Keller L (1994) Mate availability and male dispersal in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile (Mayr) (= Iridomyrmex humilis). Anim Behav 48:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pedersen JS, Krieger MJB, Vogel V, Giraud T, Keller L (2006) Native supercolonies of unrelated individuals in the invasive Argentine ant. Evolution 60:782–791PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  34. Ross KG, Shoemaker DD, Krieger MJB, DeHeer CJ, Keller L (1999) Assessing genetic structure with multiple classes of molecular markers: a case study involving the introduced fire ant Solenopsis invicta. Mol Biol Evol 16:525–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Roulston TH, Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2003) Nestmate discrimination in ants: effect of bioassay on aggressive behavior. Insectes Soc 50:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rüppell O, Stratz M, Baier B, Heinze J (2003) Mitochondrial markers in the ant Leptothorax rugatulus reveal the population genetic consequences of female philopatry at different hierarchical levels. Mol Ecol 12:795–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seppä P, Gyllenstrand M, Corander J, Pamilo P (2004) Coexistence of the social types: genetic population structure in the ant Formica exsecta. Evolution 58:2462–2471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Seppä P, Fernandez-Escudero I, Gyllenstrand M, Pamilo P (2006) Obligatory female philopatry affects genetic population structure in the ant Proformica longiseta. Insectes Soc 53:362–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Holway DA, Case TJ (1999) Behavioral and genetic differentiation between native and introduced populations of the Argentine ant. Biol Invasions 1:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Case TJ (2001) Patterns of spread in biological invasions dominated by long-distance jump dispersal: insights from Argentine ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1095–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Liang D, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) Spatiotemporal patterns of intraspecific aggression in the invasive Argentine ant. Anim Behav 64:697–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suhr EL, McKechnie SW, O’Dowd DJ (2009) Genetic and behavioural evidence for a city-wide supercolony of the invasive Argentine ant Linepithema humile (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in southeastern Australia. Aus J Entomol 48:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sunamura E, Nishisue K, Terayama M, Tatsuki S (2007) Invasion of four Argentine ant supercolonies into Kobe Port, Japan: their distributions and effects on indigenous ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 50:659–674Google Scholar
  44. Sunamura E, Espadaler X, Sakamoto H, Suzuki S, Terayama M, Tatsuki S (2009a) Intercontinental union of Argentine ants: behavioral relationships among introduced populations in Europe, North America, and Asia. Insectes Soc 56:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sunamura E, Hatsumi S, Karino S, Nishisue K, Terayama M, Kitade O, Tatsuki S (2009b) Four mutually incompatible Argentine ant supercolonies in Japan: inferring invasion history of introduced Argentine ants from their social structure. Biol Invasions 11:2329–2339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Takakura K, Fujii S (2010) Reproductive interference and salinity tolerance differentiate habitat use between two alien cockleburs: Xanthium occidentale and X. italicum (Compositae). Plant Ecol 206:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas ML, Payne-Makrisâ CM, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Holway DA (2006) When supercolonies collide: territorial aggression in an invasive and unicolonial social insect. Mol Ecol 15:4303–4315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas ML, Becker K, Abbott K, Feldhaar H (2010) Supercolony mosaics: two different invasions by the yellow crazy ant, Anoplolepis gracilipes, on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean. Biol Invasions 12:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Torres CW, Brandt M, Tsutsui ND (2007) The role of cuticular hydrocarbons as chemical cues for nestmate recognition in the invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile). Insectes Soc 54:329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV, Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5948–5953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Wilgenburg E, Torres CW, Tsutsui ND (2010a) The global expansion of a single ant supercolony. Evol Appl 3:136–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Wilgenburg E, Sulc R, Shea KJ, Tsutsui ND (2010b) Deciphering the chemical basis of nestmate recognition. J Chem Ecol 36:751–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vargo EL, Passera L (1991) Pheromonnal and behavioral queen control over the production of gynes in the Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vásquez GM, Silverman J (2008a) Queen acceptance and the complexity of nest mate discrimination in the Argentine ant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:537–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vásquez GM, Silverman J (2008b) Intraspecific aggression and colony fusion in the Argentine ant. Anim Behav 75:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vásquez GM, Schal C, Silverman J (2008) Cuticular hydrocarbons as queen adoption cues in the invasive Argentine ant. J Exp Biol 211:1249–1256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vega SJ, Rust MK (2001) The Argentine ant – a significant invasive species in agricultural, urban and natural environments. Sociobiology 37:3–25 Google Scholar
  58. Vogel V, Pedersen JS, d’Ettorre P, Lehmann L, Keller L (2009) Dynamics and genetic structure of Argentine ant supercolonies in their native range. Evolution 63:1627–1639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vogel V, Pedersen JS, Giraud T, Krieger MJB, Keller L (2010) The worldwide expansion of the Argentine ant. Diversity Distrib 16:170–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wetterer JK, Wild AL, Suarez AV, Roura-Pascual N, Espadaler X (2009) Worldwide spread of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 12:187–194Google Scholar
  61. Wild AL (2007) Taxonomic revision of the ant genus Linepithema (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Univ Calif Publ Entomol 126:1–159Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eiriki Sunamura
    • 1
  • Sugihiko Hoshizaki
    • 1
  • Hironori Sakamoto
    • 2
  • Takeshi Fujii
    • 1
  • Koji Nishisue
    • 1
  • Shun Suzuki
    • 1
  • Mamoru Terayama
    • 1
  • Yukio Ishikawa
    • 1
  • Sadahiro Tatsuki
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Agricultural and Life SciencesUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Environmental SciencesHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations