Advertisement

The Science of Nature

, 106:61 | Cite as

Home economics in an oak gall: behavioural and chemical immune strategies against a fungal pathogen in Temnothorax ant nests

  • Adele BordoniEmail author
  • Zuzana Matejkova
  • Lorenzo Chimenti
  • Lorenzo Massai
  • Brunella Perito
  • Leonardo Dapporto
  • Stefano Turillazzi
Original Paper
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

Nest architecture is a fundamental character shaping immune strategies of social insects. The arboreal ant Temnothorax unifasciatus nests in cavities such as oak galls where the entire colony lives in a unique small chamber. In these conditions, physiological and behavioural strategies likely prevail over compartmentalisation and are presumably tuned with colony size. We designed two experiments to study chemical and behavioural immune strategies against the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae in colonies of different sizes. First, we compared spore germination and length of germinal tubes inside artificial nests, designed to impede the contact between the ants and the fungus, in colonies of different size. In the absence of direct contact, Temnothorax unifasciatus colonies inhibit fungal growth inside their nests, presumably through volatile compounds. The analysis revealed a positive correlation between fungistatic activity and colony size, indicating that workers of smaller colonies do not invest a higher per capita effort in producing such substances compared to larger colonies. Second, we performed a removal experiment of contaminated and non-contaminated items introduced inside the nests of colonies of different size. Small colonies challenged with contaminated fibres showed an increased removal of all the items (both contaminated and non-contaminated) compared to small colonies challenged with non-contaminated fibres only. Conversely, larger colonies moved items regardless of the presence of the spores inside the nest. Colony size qualitatively affected removal of waste items showing a pathogen elicited reaction in small colonies to optimise the reduced workforce, while the removal behaviour in larger colonies revealed to be expressed constitutively.

Keywords

Temnothorax unifasciatus Waste removal Metarhizium anisopliae Alternative strategies Colony size Antimycotic 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Temnothorax unifasciatus was used for this study. All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any study with human participants.

Supplementary material

114_2019_1659_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (972 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 971 kb)
114_2019_1659_MOESM2_ESM.r (4 kb)
ESM 2 (R 3 kb)
114_2019_1659_MOESM3_ESM.txt (20 kb)
ESM 3 (TXT 20 kb)

References

  1. Anderson C, Ratnieks FL (1999) Task partitioning in foraging: general principles, efficiency and information reliability of queueing delays. In: Detrain C, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM, Pasteels JM (eds) Information processing in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baracchi D, Cini A (2014) A socio-spatial combined approach confirms a highly compartmentalised structure in honeybees. Ethology 120:1167–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordoni A, Dapporto L, Tatini I, Celli M, Bercigli M, Ressurrección Barrufet S, Perito B, Turillazzi S (2018) Trans-generational immunization in the acrobat ant Crematogaster scutellaris. Biol Lett 14:20170761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourke AF, Franks NR, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Brühl C (2003) Vollenhovia sp. aff. acanthina: an ant species that build nests using resin. ANeT Newslett 6:21–22Google Scholar
  6. Chapuisat M, Oppliger A, Magliano P, Christe P (2007) Wood ants use resin to protect themselves against pathogens. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2013–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen J, Henderson G, Grimm CC et al (1998) Termites fumigate their nests with naphthalene. Nature 392:558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christe P, Oppliger A, Bancalà F et al (2003) Evidence for collective medication in ants. Ecol Lett 6:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colin T, Doums C, Péronnet R, Molet M (2017) Decreasing worker size diversity does not affect colony performance during laboratory challenges in the ant Temnothorax nylanderi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cremer S, Armitage SA, Schmid-Hempel P (2007). Social immunity. Current biology, 17(16), R693-R702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Czechowski W, Radchenko A, Czechowska W (2002) The ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Poland. Museum and Institute of Zoology Warszawa, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  12. Diez L, Deneubourg J-L, Detrain C (2012) Social prophylaxis through distant corpse removal in ants. Naturwissenschaften 99:833–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dornhaus A, Franks NR (2006) Colony size affects collective decision-making in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Insect Soc 53:420–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dornhaus A, Holley JA, Pook VG., Worswick G, Franks NR (2008). Why do not all workers work? Colony size and workload during emigrations in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63(1), 43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Espadaler X, Nieves-Aldrey JL (1983) Hormigas (Hymenoptera, formicidae) pobladoras de agallas abandonadas de cinipidos (Hymenoptera, cynipidae) sobre Quercus SP en la Peninsula Iberica. Bol Estacion Cent Ecol 12:89–93Google Scholar
  16. Gautrais J, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg J-L, Anderson C (2002) Emergent polyethism as a consequence of increased colony size in insect societies. J Theor Biol 215:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghisalberti EL (1979) Propolis: a review. Bee World 60:59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinze J, Walter B (2010) Moribund ants leave their nests to die in social isolation. Curr Biol 20:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herbers JM (1981) Reliability theory and foraging by ants. J Theor Biol 89:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoggard SJ, Wilson PD, Beattie AJ, Stow AJ (2011) Social complexity and nesting habits are factors in the evolution of antimicrobial defences in wasps. PLoS One 6:e21763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeanne RL, Bouwma AM (2002) Scaling in nests of a social wasp: a property of the social group. Biol Bull 202:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karlik J, Epps MJ, Dunn RR, Penick CA (2016) Life Inside an Acorn: How Microclimate and Microbes Influence Nest Organization in Temnothorax Ants. Ethology 122:790–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leclerc J-B, Detrain C (2018) Impact of colony size on survival and sanitary strategies in fungus-infected ant colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. London KB, Jeanne RL (2003) Effects of colony size and stage of development on defense response by the swarm-founding wasp Polybia occidentalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:539–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luque GM, Giraud T, Courchamp F (2013) Allee effects in ants. J Anim Ecol 82:956–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mackay WP (2000) A review of the New World ants of the subgenus Myrafant, (genus Leptothorax)(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 36Google Scholar
  28. Menzel R (1979) Spectral Sensitivity and Color Vision in Invertebrates. In: Autrum H (ed) Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Springer, Berlin, 503–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Penick CA, Halawani O, Pearson B et al (2018) External immunity in ant societies: sociality and colony size do not predict investment in antimicrobials. R Soc Open Sci 5:171332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perito B, Cremonini M, Montecchi T, Turillazzi S (2018) A preliminary study on the antimicrobial activity of sting secretion and gastral glands of the acrobat ant Crematogaster scutellaris. Bull Insectol 71:97–101Google Scholar
  31. Rosengaus RB, Guldin MR, Traniello JF (1998) Inhibitory effect of termite fecal pellets on fungal spore germination. J Chem Ecol 24:1697–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schluns H, Crozier RH (2009) Molecular and chemical immune defenses in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 12:237–249Google Scholar
  33. Schmid-Hempel P (1998) Parasites in social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Simone M, Evans JD, Spivak M (2009) Resin collection and social immunity in honey bees. Evol Int J Org Evol 63:3016–3022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Storey GK, Vander Meer RK, Boucias DG, McCoy CW (1991) Effect of fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) venom alkaloids on the in vitro germination and development of selected entomogenous fungi. J Invertebr Pathol 58:88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stow A, Briscoe D, Gillings M, Holley M, Smith S, Leys R, Silberbauer T, Turnbull C, Beattie A (2007) Antimicrobial defences increase with sociality in bees. Biol Lett 3:422–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stroeymeyt N, Casillas-Pérez B, Cremer S (2014) Organisational immunity in social insects. Curr Opin Insect Sci 5:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tranter C, Hughes WH (2016) A preliminary study of nest structure and composition of the weaver ant Polyrhachis (Cyrtomyrma) delecta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Nat Hist 50:1197–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Velikova M, Bankova V, Tsvetkova I, Kujumgiev A, Marcucci MC (2000) Antibacterial ent-kaurene from Brazilian propolis of native stingless bees. Fitoterapia 71:693–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang L, Elliott B, Jin X et al (2015) Antimicrobial properties of nest volatiles in red imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta (hymenoptera: formicidae). Sci Nat 102:66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yek SH, Mueller UG (2011) The metapleural gland of ants. Biol Rev 86:774–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di BiologiaUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeFirenzeItaly
  2. 2.Univerzita Karlova Biologicka sekcePraha 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations