Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 87–98 | Cite as

Experimental manipulation of colony genetic diversity had no effect on short-term task efficiency in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile

  • Hervé Rosset
  • Laurent Keller
  • Michel Chapuisat
Original Article

Abstract

Genetic diversity might increase the performance of social groups by improving task efficiency or disease resistance, but direct experimental tests of these hypotheses are rare. We manipulated the level of genetic diversity in colonies of the Argentine ant Linepithema humile, and then recorded the short-term task efficiency of these experimental colonies. The efficiency of low and high genetic diversity colonies did not differ significantly for any of the following tasks: exploring a new territory, foraging, moving to a new nest site, or removing corpses. The tests were powerful enough to detect large effects, but may have failed to detect small differences. Indeed, observed effect sizes were generally small, except for the time to create a trail during nest emigration. In addition, genetic diversity had no statistically significant impact on the number of workers, males and females produced by the colony, but these tests had low power. Higher genetic diversity also did not result in lower variance in task efficiency and productivity. In contrast to genetic diversity, colony size was positively correlated with the efficiency at performing most tasks and with colony productivity. Altogether, these results suggest that genetic diversity does not strongly improve short-term task efficiency in L. humile, but that worker number is a key factor determining the success of this invasive species.

Keywords

Division of labour Task efficiency Genetic diversity Social insects 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 31-61934.00 to M.C. and several grants to L.K.). We thank Lotta Sundström and the anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Anderson C, Ratnieks FLW (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies. I. Effect of colony size on queueing delay and colony ergonomic efficiency. Am Nat 154:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P (1999) Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumble-bee. Nature 397:151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P (2001) Unexpected consequences of polyandry for parasitism and fitness in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris. Evolution 55:1639–1643Google Scholar
  4. Benois A (1973) Incidences des facteurs écologiques sur le cycle annuel et l’activité saisonnière de la fourmi d’Argentine Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), dans la région d’Antibes. Insectes Soc 20:267–296Google Scholar
  5. Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boomsma JJ, Ratnieks FLW (1996) Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 351:947–975Google Scholar
  7. Bourke AFG, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown MJF, Schmid-Hempel P (2003) The evolution of female multiple mating in social hymenoptera. Evolution 57:2067–2081PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cahan SH, Keller L (2003) Complex hybrid origin of genetic caste determination in harvester ants. Nature 424:306–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahan SH, Parker JD, Rissing SW, Johnson RA, Polony TS, Weiser MD, Smith DR (2002) Extreme genetic differences between queens and workers in hybridizing Pogonomyrmex harvester ants. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1871–1877Google Scholar
  11. Carlin NF, Reeve HK, Cover SP (1993) Kin discrimination and division of labour among matrilines in the polygynous carpenter ant, Camponotus planatus. In: Keller L (ed) Queen number and sociality in insects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 362–401Google Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock T (2002) Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science 296:69–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole BJ, Wiernasz DC (1999) The selective advantage of low relatedness. Science 285:891–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole BJ, Wiernasz DC (2000) Colony size and reproduction in the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Insectes Soc 47:249–255Google Scholar
  16. Costa JT, Ross KG (2003) Fitness effects of group merging in a social insect. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1697–1702Google Scholar
  17. Crozier RH, Fjerdingstad EJ (2001) Polyandry in social Hymenoptera—disunity in diversity? Ann Zool Fenn 38:267–285Google Scholar
  18. Crozier RH, Page RE (1985) On being the right size: male contributions and multiple mating in social Hymenoptera. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crozier RH, Pamilo P (1996) Evolution of social insect colonies: sex allocation and kin selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. El Mousadik A, Petit RJ (1996) High level of genetic differentiation for allelic richness among populations of the argan tree [Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels] endemic to Morocco. Theor Appl Genet 92:832–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A (1996) GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 28:1–11Google Scholar
  22. Fjerdingstad EJ, Gertsch PJ, Keller L (2003) The relationship between multiple mating by queens, within-colony genetic variability and fitness in the ant Lasius niger. J Evol Biol 16:844–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fraser VS, Kaufmann B, Oldroyd BP, Crozier RH (2000) Genetic influence on caste in the ant Camponotus consobrinus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frumhoff PC, Baker J (1988) A genetic component to division of labour within honey bee colonies. Nature 333:358–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuchs S, Schade V (1994) Lower performance in honeybee colonies of uniform paternity. Apidologie 25:155–168Google Scholar
  26. Giraud T, Pedersen JS, Keller L (2002) Evolution of supercolonies: the Argentine ants of southern Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:6075–6079Google Scholar
  27. Gordon DM (1995) The expandable network of ant exploration. Anim Behav 50:995–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon DM, Mehdiabadi NJ (1999) Encounter rate and task allocation in harvester ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (Version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statisics. J Hered 86:485–486Google Scholar
  30. Holway DA (1999) Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80:238–251Google Scholar
  31. Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Mechanisms of dispersed central-place foraging in polydomous colonies of the Argentine ant. Anim Behav 59:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holway DA, Case TJ (2001) Effects of colony-level variation on competitive ability in the invasive Argentine ant. Anim Behav 61:1181–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holway DA, Suarez AV, Case TJ (1998) Loss of intraspecific aggression in the success of a widespread invasive social insect. Science 282:949–952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Hughes WOH, Boomsma JJ (2004) Genetic diversity and disease resistance in leaf-cutting ant societies. Evolution 58:1251–1260Google Scholar
  36. Hughes WOH, Sumner S, Van Borm S, Boomsma JJ (2003) Worker caste polymorphism has a genetic basis in Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:9394–9397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Human KG, Gordon DM (1996) Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Human KG, Gordon DM (1999) Behavioral interactions of the invasive Argentine ant with native ant species. Insectes Soc 46:159–163Google Scholar
  39. Ingram KK (2002) Flexibility in nest density and social structure in invasive populations of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. Oecologia 133:492–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones JC, Myerscough MR, Graham S, Oldroyd BP (2004) Honey bee nest thermoregulation: diversity promotes stability. Science 305:402–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Julian GE, Cahan S (1999) Undertaking specialization in the desert leaf-cutter ant Acromyrmex versicolor. Anim Behav 58:437–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Julian GE, Fewell JH, Gadau J, Johnson RA, Larrabee D (2002) Genetic determination of the queen caste in an ant hybrid zone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:8157–8160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keller L, Chapuisat M (1999) Cooperation among selfish individuals in insect societies. Bioscience 49:899–909Google Scholar
  44. Keller L, Chapuisat M (2001) Eusociality and cooperation. Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, http://www.els.net/. Nature, London
  45. Keller L, Reeve HK (1994) Genetic variability, queen number, and polyandry in social hymenoptera. Evolution 48:694–704Google Scholar
  46. Keller L, Cherix D, Ulloa-Chacón P (1989a) Description of a new artificial diet for rearing ant colonies as Iridomyrmex humilis, Monomorium pharaonis and Wasmannia auropunctata (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). Insectes Soc 36:348–352Google Scholar
  47. Keller L, Passera L, Suzzoni JP (1989b) Queen execution in the Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Physiol Entomol 14:157–163Google Scholar
  48. Kraus B, Page RE (1998) Parasites, pathogens, and polyandry in social insects. Am Nat 151:383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krieger MJB, Keller L (1999) Low polymorphism at 19 microsatellite loci in a French population of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile). Mol Ecol 8:1078–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krieger MJB, Keller L (2000) Mating frequency and genetic structure of the Argentine ant Linepithema humile. Mol Ecol 9:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liersch S, Schmid-Hempel P (1998) Genetic variation within social insect colonies reduces parasite load. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:221–225Google Scholar
  52. Neumann P, Moritz RFA (2000) Testing genetic variance hypotheses for the evolution of polyandry in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Insectes Soc 47:271–279Google Scholar
  53. Oldroyd BP, Rinderer TE, Harbo JR, Buco SM (1992) Effects of intracolonial genetic diversity on honeybee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colony performances. Ann Entomol Soc Am 85:335–343Google Scholar
  54. Oldroyd BP, Sylvester HA, Wongsiri S, Rinderer TS (1994) Task specialization in a wild bee, Apis florea (Hymenoptera: Apidae), revealed by RFLP banding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:25–30Google Scholar
  55. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  56. Page RE, Erber J (2002) Levels of behavioral organization and the evolution of division of labor. Naturwissenschaften 89:91–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Page RE, Robinson GE, Fondrk MK, Nasr ME (1995) Effects of worker genotypic diversity on honey bee colony development and behavior (Apis mellifera L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:387–396Google Scholar
  58. Palmer KA, Oldroyd BP (2003) Evidence for intra-colonial genetic variance in resistance to American foulbrood of honey bees (Apis mellifera): further support for the parasite/pathogen hypothesis for the evolution of polyandry. Naturwissenschaften 90:265–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Passera L (1994) Characteristics of tramp species. In: Williams DF (ed) Exotic ants biology, impact, and control of introduced species. Westview, Boulder, Colo, pp 23–43Google Scholar
  60. Passera L, Keller L (1987) Energy investment during the differentiation of sexuals and workers in the Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Mitt Schweiz Entomol Ges 60:249–260Google Scholar
  61. Passera L, Keller L, Suzzoni J-P (1988) Control of brood male production in the Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Insectes Soc 35:19–33Google Scholar
  62. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 242:258–275Google Scholar
  63. Queller DC, Strassmann JE (2002) The many selves of social insects. Science 296:311–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225Google Scholar
  65. Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 37:637–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Robinson GE, Page RE (1988) Genetic determination of guarding and undertaking in honey-bee colonies. Nature 333:356–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmid-Hempel P, Crozier RH (1999) Polyandry versus polygyny versus parasites. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 354:507–515Google Scholar
  68. Sherman PW, Seeley TD, Reeve HK (1988) Parasites, pathogens, and polyandry in social Hymenoptera. Am Nat 131:602–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sherman PW, Seeley TD, Reeve HK (1998) Parasites, pathogens, and polyandry in honey bees. Am Nat 151:392–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Starr CK (1984) Sperm competition, kinship, and sociality in the aculeate Hymenoptera. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic, Orlando, Fla, pp 427–464Google Scholar
  71. Stuart RJ, Page RE (1991) Genetic component to division of labor among workers of a leptothoracine ant. Naturwissenschaften 78:375–377Google Scholar
  72. 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 98:1095–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sundström L, Ratnieks FLW (1998) Sex ratio conflicts, mating frequency, and queen fitness in the ant Formica truncorum. Behav Ecol 9:116–121Google Scholar
  74. Tarpy DR (2003) Genetic diversity within honeybee colonies prevents severe infections and promotes colony growth. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:99–103Google Scholar
  75. Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2001) Population genetics and colony structure of the argentine ant (Linepithema humile) in its native and introduced ranges. Evolution 55:976–985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV (2003) The colony structure and population biology of invasive ants. Conserv Biol 17:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vargo EL, Passera L (1991) Pheromonal and behavioral queen control over the production of gynes in the Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:161–169Google Scholar
  78. Volny VP, Gordon DM (2002) Genetic basis for queen-worker dimorphism in a social insect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:6108–6111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wiernasz DC, Perroni CL, Cole BJ (2004) Polyandry and fitness in the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Mol Ecol 13:1601–1606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hervé Rosset
    • 1
  • Laurent Keller
    • 1
  • Michel Chapuisat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations