Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 490–499 | Cite as

Queen fertility, egg marking and colony size in the ant Camponotus floridanus

  • Annett Endler
  • Jürgen Liebig
  • Bert Hölldobler
Original Article


In ant societies, workers do not usually reproduce but gain indirect fitness benefits from raising related offspring produced by the queen. One of the preconditions of this worker self-restraint is sufficient fertility of the queen. The queen is, therefore, expected to signal her fertility. In Camponotus floridanus, workers can recognize the presence of a highly fertile queen via her eggs, which are marked with the queen's specific hydrocarbon profile. If information on fertility is encoded in the hydrocarbon profile of eggs, we expect workers to be able to differentiate between eggs from highly and weakly fertile queens. We found that workers discriminate between these eggs solely on the basis of their hydrocarbon profiles which differ both qualitatively and quantitatively. This pattern is further supported by the similarity of the egg profiles of workers and weakly fertile queens and the similar treatment of both kinds of eggs. Profiles of queen eggs correspond to the cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of the respective queens. Changes in the cuticular profiles are associated with the size of the colony the queen originates from and her current egg-laying rate. However, partial correlation analysis indicates that only colony size predicts the cuticular profile. Colony size is a buffered indicator of queen fertility as it is a consequence of queen productivity within a certain period of time, whereas daily egg-laying rate varies due to cyclical oviposition. We conclude that surface hydrocarbons of eggs and the cuticular profiles of queens both signal queen fertility, suggesting a major role of fertility signals in the regulation of reproduction in social insects.


Queen signal Honest signaling Pheromone Cuticular hydrocarbons Worker policing Conflict Formicidae 



We thank Thibaud Monnin, Christian Peeters, Kazuki Tsuji, a referee, and especially Lotta Sundström for providing helpful comments on the manuscript; we also thank the German Science Foundation (SFB 554 TP C3), the European Union (INSECTS, Integrated Studies of the Economy of Insect Societies, HPRN-CT-2000-00052), and Aventis (travel grant to AE) for funding. The Social Insect Working Group of the Santa Fe Institute provided insightful discussions.


  1. Aitchison J (1986) The statistical analysis of compositional data: monographs in statistics and applied probability. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayasse M, Maelovits T, Tengö J, Taghizadeh T, Francke W (1995) Are there pheromonal dominance signals in the bumblebee Bombus hypnorum L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Apidologie 26:163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron AB, Oldroyd BP, Ratnieks FLW (2001) Worker reproduction in honey-bees (Apis) and the anarchic syndrome: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beekman M, Oldroyd BP (2005) Honey bee workers use cues other than egg viability for policing. Biol Lett 1:129–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonavita-Cougourdan A, Théraulaz G, Bagnéres AG, Roux M, Pratte M, Provost E, Clément JL (1991) Cuticular hydrocarbons, social organisation and ovarian development in a polistine wasp: Polistes dominulus Christ. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol 100:667–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourke AFG (1988a) Worker reproduction in the higher eusocial Hymenoptera. Q Rev Biol 63:291–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourke AFG (1988b) Dominance orders, worker reproduction, and queen-worker conflict in the slave-making ant Harpagoxenus sublaevis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourke AFG, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Choe JC (1988) Worker reproduction and social evolution in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). In: Trager JC (ed) Advances in myrmecology. E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp 163–187Google Scholar
  10. Cole BJ (1986) The social behavior of Leptothorax allardycei (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): time budgets and the evolution of worker reproduction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuvillier-Hot V, Gadagkar R, Peeters C, Cobb M (2002) Regulation of reproduction in a queenless ant: aggression, pheromones and reduction in conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1295–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuvillier-Hot V, Lenoir A, Peeters C (2004a) Reproductive monopoly enforced by sterile police workers in a queenless ant. Behav Ecol 15:970–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuvillier-Hot V, Lenoir A, Crewe R, Malosse C, Peeters C (2004b) Fertility signalling and reproductive skew in queenless ants. Anim Behav 68:1209–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D'Ettorre P, Heinze J, Ratnieks FLW (2004a) Worker policing by egg eating in the ponerine ant Pachycondyla inversa. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1427–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D'Ettorre P, Heinze J, Schulz C, Francke W, Ayasse M (2004b) Does she smell like a queen? Chemoreception of a cuticular hydrocarbon signal in the ant Pachycondyla inversa. J Exp Biol 207:1085–1091PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Biseau J-C, Passera L, Daloze D, Aron S (2004) Ovarian activity correlates with extreme changes in cuticular hydrocarbon profile in the highly polygynous ant, Linepithema humile. J Insect Physiol 50:585–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietemann V, Hölldobler B, Peeters C (2002) Caste specialization and differentiation in reproductive potential in the phylogenetically primitive ant Myrmecia gulosa. Insectes Soc 49:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 U S A 100:10341–10346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Endler A, Liebig J, Schmitt T, Parker J, Jones G, Schreier P, Hölldobler B (2004) Surface hydrocarbons of queen eggs regulate worker reproduction in a social insect. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:2945–2950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fan Y, Zurek L, Dykstra MJ, Schal C (2003) Hydrocarbon synthesis by enzymatically dissociated oenocytes of the abdominal integument of the German cockroach, Blattella germanica. Naturwissenschaften 90:121–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Foster KR (2004) Diminishing returns in social evolution: the not-so-tragic commons. J Evol Biol 17:1026–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foster KR, Ratnieks FLW (2001) Convergent evolution of worker policing by egg eating in the honeybee and common wasp. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:169–174Google Scholar
  23. Frank SA (1995) Mutual policing and repression of competition in the evolution of cooperative groups. Nature 377:520–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gadau J, Heinze J, Hölldobler B, Schmid M (1996) Population and colony structure of the carpenter ant Camponotus floridanus. Mol Ecol 5:785–792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gobin B, Billen J, Peeters C (1999) Policing behaviour towards virgin egg layers in a polygynous ponerine ant. Anim Behav 58:1117–1122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Halling LA, Oldroyd BP, Wattanachaiyingcharoen W, Baron AB, Nanork P, Wongsiri S (2001) Worker policing in the bee Apis florea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behavior I and II. J Theor Biol 7:1–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammond RL, Keller L (2004) Conflict over male parentage in social insects. PLoS Biol 2:1472–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hannonen M, Sledge MF, Turillazzi S, Sundström L (2002) Queen reproduction, chemical signalling and worker bahaviour in polygyne colonies of the ant Formica fusca. Anim Behav 64:477–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hartmann A, Wantia J, Torres JA, Heinze J (2003) Worker policing without genetic conflicts in a clonal ant. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:12836–12840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heinze J, Keller L (2000) Alternative reproductive strategies: a queen perspective in ants. Trends Ecol Evol 15:508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heinze J, Stengl B, Sledge MF (2002) Worker rank, reproductive status and cuticular hydrocarbon signature in the ant, Pachycondyla cf. inversa. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Helanterä H, Sundström L (2005) Worker reproduction in the ant Formica fusca. J Evol Biol 18:162–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hölldobler B, Carlin NF (1989) Colony founding, queen control and worker reproduction in the ant Aphaenogaster (=Novomessor) cockerelli (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 96:131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1983) Queen control in colonies of weaver ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 76:235–238Google Scholar
  36. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoover SER, Keeling CI, Winston ML, Slessor KN (2003) The effect of queen pheromones on worker honey bee ovary development. Naturwissenschaften 90:477–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Iwanishi S, Hasegawa E, Ohkawara K (2003) Worker oviposition and policing behaviour in the myrmecine ant Aphaenogaster smythiesi japonica Forel. Anim Behav 66:513–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keller L, Nonacs P (1993) The role of queen pheromones in social insects: queen control or queen signal. Anim Behav 45:787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kikuta N, Tsuji K (1999) Queen and worker policing in monogynous and monandrous ant, Diacamma sp. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liebig J, Peeters C, Hölldobler B (1999) Worker policing limits the number of reproductives in a ponerine ant. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1865–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liebig J, Peeters C, Oldham NJ, Markstädter C, Hölldobler B (2000) Are variations in cuticular hydrocarbons of queens and workers a reliable signal of fertility in the ant Harpegnathos saltator? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:4124–4131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lucas C, Pho DB, Fresneau D, Jallon JM (2004) Hydrocarbon circulation and colonial signature in Pachycondyla villosa. J Insect Physiol 50:595–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maynard Smith J, Szathmary E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Monnin T, Peeters C (1997) Cannibalism of subordinates' eggs in the monogynous queenless ant Dinoponera quadriceps. Naturwissenschaften 84:499–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Monnin T, Peeters C (1999) Dominance hierarchy and reproductive conflicts among subordinates in a monogynous queenless ant. Behav Ecol 10:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Monnin T, Ratnieks FLW (2001) Policing in queenless ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Monnin T, Malosse C, Peeters C (1998) Solid-phase microextraction and cuticular hydrocarbon differences related to reproductive activity in a queenless ant. J Chem Ecol 24:473–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Naumann K, Winston ML, Slessor KN, Prestwich GD, Webster FX (1991) Production and transmission of honey bee queen (Apis mellifera L.) mandibular gland pheromone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oldroyd BP, Halling LA, Good G, Wattanachaiyingcharoen W, Barron AB, Nanork P, Wongsiri S, Ratnieks FLW (2001) Worker policing and worker reproduction in Apis cerana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ortius D, Heinze J (1999) Fertility signaling in queens of a North American ant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pamilo P (1991) Evolution of colony characteristics in social insects. II. number of reproductive individuals. Am Nat 138:412–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pamilo P, Crozier RH (1996) Reproductive skew simplified. Oikos 75:533–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Passera L (1980) La fonction inhibitrice des reines de la fourmi Plagiolepis pygmaea Latr.: role des pheromones. Insectes Soc 27:212–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peeters C, Monnin T, Malosse C (1999) Cuticular hydrocarbons correlated with reproductive status in a queenless ant. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1323–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pirk CWW, Neumann P, Hepburn R, Moritz RFA, Tautz J (2004) Egg viability and worker policing in honey bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:8649–8651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ratnieks FLW (1988) Reproductive harmony via mutual policing by workers in eusocial Hymenoptera. Am Nat 132:217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ratnieks FLW (1993) Egg-laying, egg-removal, and ovary development by workers in queenright honey bee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ratnieks FLW, Reeve HK (1992) Conflict in single queen hymenopteran societies: the structure of conflict and processes that reduce conflict in advanced eusocial species. J Theor Biol 158:33–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ratnieks FLW, Visscher PK (1989) Worker policing in the honeybee. Nature 342:796–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schal C, Sevala VL, Young HP, Bachmann JA (1998) Sites of synthesis and transport pathways of insect hydrocarbons: cuticle and ovary as target tissues. Am Zool 38:382–393Google Scholar
  62. Sanetra M, Crozier RH (2002) Daughters inherit colonies from mothers in the ‘living-fossil’ ant Nothomyrmecia macrops. Naturwissenschaften 89:71–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Seeley TD (1979) Queen substance dispersal by messenger workers in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:391–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Seeley TD (1985) Honeybee ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  65. Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr (1988) Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Sledge M, Boscaro F, Turillazzi S (2001) Cuticular hydrocarbons and reproductive status in the social wasp Polistes dominulus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tentschert J, Bestmann HJ, Heinze J (2002) Cuticular compounds of workers and queens in two Leptothorax ant species—a comparison of results obtained by solvent extraction, solid sampling, and SPME. Chemoecology 12:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vargo EL (1988) A bioassay for a primer pheromone of queen fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) which inhibits the production of sexuals. Insectes Soc 35:382–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vargo EL, Hulsey CD (2000) Multiple glandular origins of queen pheromones in the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. J Insect Physiol 46:1151–1159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Visscher PK (1989) A quantitative study of worker reproduction in honey bee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Visscher PK (1996) Reproductive conflict in honey bees: a stalemate of worker egg-laying and policing. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walin L, Sundström L, Seppä P, Rosengren R (1998) Worker reproduction in ants—a genetic analysis. Heredity 81:604–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wenseleers T, Helanterä H, Hart A, Ratnieks FLW (2004) Worker reproduction and policing in insect societies: an ESS analysis. J Evol Biol 17:1035–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annett Endler
    • 1
  • Jürgen Liebig
    • 1
  • Bert Hölldobler
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Behavioral Physiology and Sociobiology BiocenterUniversity of WürzburgWurzburgGermany
  2. 2.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations