Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 675–684 | Cite as

Task-dependent influence of genetic architecture and mating frequency on division of labour in social insect societies

  • Danesh TaraporeEmail author
  • Dario Floreano
  • Laurent Keller
Original Paper

Abstract

Division of labour is one of the most prominent features of social insects. The efficient allocation of individuals to different tasks requires dynamic adjustment in response to environmental perturbations. Theoretical models suggest that the colony-level flexibility in responding to external changes and internal perturbation may depend on the within-colony genetic diversity, which is affected by the number of breeding individuals. However, these models have not considered the genetic architecture underlying the propensity of workers to perform the various tasks. Here, we investigated how both within-colony genetic variability (stemming from variation in the number of matings by queens) and the number of genes influencing the stimulus (threshold) for a given task at which workers begin to perform that task jointly influence task allocation efficiency. We used a numerical agent-based model to investigate the situation where workers had to perform either a regulatory task or a foraging task. One hundred generations of artificial selection in populations consisting of 500 colonies revealed that an increased number of matings always improved colony performance, whatever the number of loci encoding the thresholds of the regulatory and foraging tasks. However, the beneficial effect of additional matings was particularly important when the genetic architecture of queens comprised one or a few genes for the foraging task’s threshold. By contrast, a higher number of genes encoding the foraging task reduced colony performance with the detrimental effect being stronger when queens had mated with several males. Finally, the number of genes encoding the threshold for the regulatory task only had a minor effect on colony performance. Overall, our numerical experiments support the importance of mating frequency on efficiency of division of labour and also reveal complex interactions between the number of matings and genetic architecture.

Keywords

Task allocation Response thresholds Number of matings Number of loci Genetic diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Markus Waibel for initial explorations, Steffen Wischmann, John Wang, Sara Mitri and Ana Duarte for helpful discussion and comments, two anonymous reviewers for very useful comments, Timothy Stirling for proofreading the manuscript and the Swiss NSF for supporting this work.

Supplementary material

265_2009_885_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (535 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material 1 (PDF 535 KB)
265_2009_885_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (31 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material 2 (PDF 32 KB)

References

  1. Bertram SM, Gorelick R, Fewell JH (2003) Colony response to graded resource changes: an analytical model of the influence of genotype, environment, and dominance. Theor Popul Biol 64:151–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg JL (1996) Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labour in insect societies. Proc R Soc B 263:1565–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boomsma JJ, Ratnieks FLW (1996) Paternity in eusocial hymenoptera. Phil Trans R Soc B 351:947–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calabi P, Traniello JFA (1989) Behavioral flexibility in age castes of the ant Pheidole dentata. J Insect Behav 2:663–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cerdá X, Angulo E, Boulay R, Lenoir A (2009) Individual and collective foraging decisions: field study of worker recruitment in the gypsy ant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:551–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costa JT, Ross KG (2003) Fitness effects of group merging in a social insect. Proc R Soc B 270:1697–1702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Crosland MWJ, Traniello JFA (1997) Behavioral plasticity in division of labor in the lower termite Reticulitermes fukienensis. Naturwissenschaften 84:208–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS (1998) Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 13:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fewell JH, Bertram SM (1999) Division of labor in a dynamic environment: response by honeybees (Apis mellifera) to graded changes in colony pollen stores. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fournier D, Battaille G, Timmermans I, Aron S (2008) Genetic diversity, worker size polymorphism and division of labour in the polyandrous ant Cataglyphis cursor. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 75:151–168Google Scholar
  11. Frumhoff PC, Baker J (1988) A genetic component to division of labour within honey bee colonies. Nature 333:358–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuchs S, Schade V (1994) Lower performance in honeybee colonies of uniform paternity. Apidologie 25:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon DM (1989) Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants. Anim Behav 38:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon DM (1991) Behavioral flexibility and the foraging ecology of seed-eating ants. Am Nat 138:379–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham S, Myerscough MR, Jones JC, Oldroyd BP (2006) Modelling the role of intracolonial genetic diversity on regulation of brood temperature in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies. Insectes Soc 53:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes WOH, Ratnieks FLW, Oldroyd BP (2008) Multiple paternity or multiple queens: two routes to greater intracolonial genetic diversity in the eusocial hymenoptera. J Evol Biol 21:1090–1095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt GJ, Page RE, Fondrk MK, Dullum CJ (1995) Major quantitative trait loci affecting honey bee foraging behavior. Genetics 141:1537–1545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeanson R, Fewell JH, Gorelick R, Bertram SM (2007) Emergence of increased division of labor as a function of group size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones JC, Nanork P, Oldroyd BP (2007) The role of genetic diversity in nest cooling in a wild honey bee, Apis florea. J Comp Physiol A 193:159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones JC, Myerscough MR, Graham S, Oldroyd BP (2004) Honey bee nest thermoregulation: diversity promotes stability. Science 305:402–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Julian GE, Cahan S (1999) Undertaking specialization in the desert leaf-cutter ant Acromyrmex versicolor. Anim Behav 58:437–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Karsai I, Wenzel JW (2000) Organization and regulation of nest construction behavior in Metapolybia Wasps. J Insect Behav 13:111–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keller L, Reeve H (1994) Genetic variability, queen number, and polyandry in social hymenoptera. Evolution 48:694–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenoir JC, Laloi D, Dechaume-Moncharmont FX, Solignac M, Pham MH (2006) Intra-colonial variation of the sting extension response in the honey bee Apis mellifera. Insectes Soc 53:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mattila HR, Seeley TD (2007) Genetic diversity in honey bee colonies enhances productivity and fitness. Science 317:362–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mercier J, Lenoir A (1999) Individual flexibility and choice of foraging strategy in Polyrhachis laboriosa F. Smith (hymenoptera, formicidae). Insectes Soc 46:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Myerscough MR, Oldroyd BP (2004) Simulation models of the role of genetic variability in social insect task allocation. Insectes Soc 51:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Donnell S (1996) RAPD markers suggest genotypic effects on forager specialization in a eusocial wasp. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oldroyd BP, Rinderer TE, Buco SM (1991) Intracolonial variance in honey bee foraging behaviour: the effects of sucrose concentration. J Apic Res 30:137–145Google Scholar
  31. Oldroyd BP, Rinderer TE, Buco SM, Beaman LD (1993) Genetic variance in honey bees for preferred foraging distance. Anim Behav 45:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oldroyd BP, Sylvester HA, Wongsiri S, Rinderer TE (1994) Task specialization in a wild bee, Apis florea (hymenoptera: apidae), revealed by RFLP banding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Page RE, Mitchell SD (1998) Self-organization and the evolution of division of labor. Apidologie 29:171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Page RE, Fondrk MK, Hunt GJ, Guzmán-Novoa E, Humphries MA, Nguyen K, Greene AS (2000) Genetic dissection of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) foraging behavior. J Heredity 91:474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perez-Uribe A, Floreano D, Keller L (2003) Effects of group composition and level of selection in the evolution of cooperation in artificial ants. In: Banzhaf W, Christaller T, Dittrich P, Kim J, Ziegler J (eds) Proceedings of the 7th European conference on artificial life (ECAL’03). Springer, New York, pp 128–137Google Scholar
  36. Ranger S, O’Donnell S (1999) Genotypic effects on forager behavior in the neotropical stingless bee Partamona bilineata (Hymenoptera: meliponidae). Naturwissenschaften 86:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Ann Rev Entomol 37:637–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosset H, Keller L, Chapuisat M (2005) Experimental manipulation of colony genetic diversity had no effect on short-term task efficiency in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rüppell O, Pankiw T, Page RE (2004) Pleiotropy, epistasis and new QTL: the genetic architecture of honey bee foraging behavior. J Heredity 95:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwander T, Rosset H, Chapuisat M (2005) Division of labour and worker size polymorphism in ant colonies: the impact of social and genetic factors. Anim Behav 59:215–221Google Scholar
  41. Seeley TD (1989) Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colony’s nutritional status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Snyder LE (1992) The genetics of social behavior in a polygynous ant. Naturwissenschaften 79:525–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Strassmann J (2001) The rarity of multiple mating by females in the social hymenoptera. Insectes Soc 48:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trontti K, Thurin N, Sundström L, Aron S (2007) Mating for convenience or genetic diversity? Mating patterns in the polygynous ant Plagiolepis pygmaea. Behav Ecol 18:298–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waibel M, Floreano D, Magnenat M, Keller L (2006) Division of labour and colony efficiency in social insects: effects of interactions between genetic architecture, colony kin structure and rate of perturbations. Proc R Soc B 273:1815–1823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Belknap, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson EO (1984) The relation between caste ratios and division of labor in the ant genus Pheidole (Hymenoptera: formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danesh Tarapore
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dario Floreano
    • 2
  • Laurent Keller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolution (DEE), BiophoreUniversity of Lausanne (UNIL)LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Laboratory of Intelligent Systems (LIS)Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), EPFL-STI-IMT-LISLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations