Two pathways ensuring social harmony
- 435 Downloads
Reproductive division of labour is a characteristic trait of social insects. The dominant reproductive individual, often the queen, uses chemical communication and/or behaviour to maintain her social status. Queens of many social insects communicate their fertility status via cuticle-bound substances. As these substances usually possess a low volatility, their range in queen–worker communication is potentially limited. Here, we investigate the range and impact of behavioural and chemical queen signals on workers of the ant Temnothorax longispinosus. We compared the behaviour and ovary development of workers subjected to three different treatments: workers with direct chemical and physical contact to the queen, those solely under the influence of volatile queen substances and those entirely separated from the queen. In addition to short-ranged queen signals preventing ovary development in workers, we discovered a novel secondary pathway influencing worker behaviour. Workers with no physical contact to the queen, but exposed to volatile substances, started to develop their ovaries, but did not change their behaviour compared to workers in direct contact to the queen. In contrast, workers in queen-separated groups showed both increased ovary development and aggressive dominance interactions. We conclude that T. longispinosus queens influence worker ovary development and behaviour via two independent signals, both ensuring social harmony within the colony.
KeywordsDominance interactions Chemical communication Cuticular hydrocarbons Fertility signalling Reproductive division of labour Social insects Ants
We like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their time and constructive criticism and Inon Scharf, Volker Witte and Andreas Modlmeier for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. The first and second authors appear in alphabetical order and contributed equally to this paper.
T.P. was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Research Unit 1078 grant Fo 298 / 9-1.
- Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
- Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Monnin T (2006) Chemical recognition of reproductive status in social insects. Ann Zool Fenn 43:515–530Google Scholar
- Peeters C, Liebig J (2009) Organisation of insect societies. From Genome to sociocomplexity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 220–242Google Scholar
- Vander Meer RK, Breed MD, Espelie KE, Winston ML (1998) Pheromone communication in social insects: ants, wasps, bees, and termites. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar
- Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar