Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 21–30 | Cite as

Behavioral transitions with the evolution of cooperative nest founding by harvester ant queens

  • Rick Overson
  • Juergen Gadau
  • Rebecca M. Clark
  • Stephen C. Pratt
  • Jennifer H. Fewell
Original Paper


Research on the evolution of cooperative groups tends to explore the costs and benefits of cooperation, with less focus on the proximate behavioral changes necessary for the transition from solitary to cooperative living. However, understanding what proximate changes must occur, as well as those pre-conditions already in place, is critical to understanding the origins and evolution of sociality. The California harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus demonstrates population-level variation in colony founding over a close geographic range. In adjacent populations, queens either found nests as single individuals (haplometrosis) or form cooperative groups of nonrelatives (pleometrosis). We compared aggregation, aggression, and tolerance of queens from one pleometrotic and two haplometrotic populations during nest initiation, to determine which behaviors show an evolutionary shift and which are present at the transition to pleometrosis. Surprisingly, within-nest aggregative behavior was equally present among all populations. In nesting boxes with multiple available brood-rearing sites, both queen types readily formed and clustered around a single common brood pile, suggesting that innate attraction to brood (offspring) facilitates the transition to social aggregation. In contrast, queens from the three populations differed in their probabilities of attraction on the ground to nest sites occupied by other queens and in levels of aggression. Our results suggest that some key behavioral mechanisms facilitating cooperation in P. californicus are in place prior to the evolution of pleometrosis and that the switch from aggression to tolerance is critical for the evolution of stable cooperative associations.


Pleometrosis Cooperation Sociality Foundress associations Proximate mechanisms Aggression Aggregation Clustering Pre-adaptation Harvester ant Social dynamics 


  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aron S, Steinhauer N, Fournier D (2009) Influence of queen phenotype, investment and maternity apportionment on the outcome of fights in cooperative foundations of the ant Lasius niger. Anim Behav 77:1067–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aviles L (2002) Solving the freeloaders paradox: genetic associations and frequency-dependent selection in the evolution of cooperation among nonrelatives. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:14268–14273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker P, Robertson C, Funk S, Harris S (1998) Potential fitness benefits of group living in the red fox, Vulpes vulpes. Anim Behav 56:1411–1424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balas MT, Adams ES (1996) The dissolution of cooperative groups: mechanisms of queen mortality in incipient fire ant colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp G, Belisle M, Giraldeau L (1997) Influence of conspecific attraction on the spatial distribution of learning foragers in a patchy habitat. J Anim Ecol 66:671–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernasconi G, Strassmann JE (1999) Cooperation among unrelated individuals: the ant foundress case. Trends Ecol Evol 14:477–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bono JM, Crespi BJ (2006) Costs and benefits of joint colony founding in Australian acacia thrips. Insect Soc 53:489–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cahan SH, Fewell JH (2004) Division of labor and the evolution of task sharing in queen associations of the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahan S, Helms KR, Rissing SW (1998) An abrupt transition in colony founding behaviour in the ant Messor pergandei. Anim Behav 55:1583–1594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock T (2002) Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science 296:69–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole B (2009) The ecological setting of social evolution: the demography of ant populations. In: Gadau J, Fewell JH (eds) Organization of insect societies: from genome to sociocomplexity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 74–105Google Scholar
  13. Costa JT, Ross KG (2003) Fitness effects of group merging in a social insect. Proc R Soc B 270:1697–1702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowan D (1987) Group living in the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus): mutual benefit or resource localization? J Anim Ecol 56:779–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fletcher RJ (2006) Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 168:207–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helms KR, Helms Cahan S (2012) Large-scale regional variation in cooperation and conflict among queens of the desert ant Messor pergandei. Anim Behav 84:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1977) The number of queens: an important trait in ant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 64:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (2009) The superorganism: the beauty, elegance, and strangeness of insect societies. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunt J (2007) The evolution of social wasps. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunt J (2012) A conceptual model for the origin of worker behaviour and adaptation of eusociality. J Evol Biol 25(1):1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jakob E (1991) Costs and benefits of group living for pholcid spiderlings: losing food, saving silk. Anim Behav 41:711–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeanson R, Deneubourg JL (2007) Conspecific attraction and shelter selection in gregarious insects. Am Nat 170:47–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeanson R, Fewell J (2008) Influence of the social context on division of labor in ant foundress associations. Behav Ecol 19:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeanson R, Rivault C, Deneubourg JL, Blanco S, Fournier R, Jost C, Theraulaz G (2005) Self-organized aggregation in cockroaches. Anim Behav 69:169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson R (2004) Colony founding by pleometrosis in the semiclaustral seed-harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Anim Behav 68:1189–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller L (1995) Social life: the paradox of multiple-queen colonies. Trends Ecol Evol 10:355–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellner K, Trindl A, Heinze J, D’Etorre P (2007) Polygyny and polyandry in small ant societies. Mol Ecol 16:2363–2369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Macdonald D (1983) The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301:379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manly BFJ (2006) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology, 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Mas F, Kölliker M (2008) Maternal care and offspring begging in social insects: chemical signalling, hormonal regulation and evolution. Anim Behav 76:1121–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mas F, Haynes KF, Kölliker M (2009) A chemical signal of offspring quality affects maternal care in a social insect. Proc R Soc B 276:2847–2853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morel L, Vander Meer RK (1988) Do ant brood pheromones exist? Ann Entomol Soc Am 81:705–710Google Scholar
  34. Muller KL (1998) The role of conspecifics in habitat settlement in a territorial grasshopper. Anim Behav 56:479–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nonacs P (1992) Queen condition and alate density affect pleometrosis in the ant Lasius pallitarsis. Insect Soc 39:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Overson RP (2011) Causes and consequences of queen-number variation in the California harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Dissertation, Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  37. Parrish JK, Hamner WM (1997) Animal groups in three dimensions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Payton ME, Greenstone MH, Schenker N (2003) Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical significance? J Insect Sci 3:34PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rissing SW, Pollock GB (1987) Queen aggression, pleometrotic advantage and brood raiding in the ant Veromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Anim Behav 35:975–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rissing SW, Johnson RA, Martin JW (2000) Colony founding behavior of some desert ants: geographic variation in metrosis. Psyche 103:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosengaus R, Maxmen A, Coates L, Traniello J (1998) Disease resistance: a benefit of sociality in the dampwood termite Zootermopsis angusticollis (Isoptera: Termopsidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sachs JL, Mueller UG, Wilcox TP, Bull JJ (2004) The evolution of cooperation. Q Rev Biol 79:135–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seeley T, Morse R (1978) Nest site selection by the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Insect Soc 25:323–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sommer K, Holldobler B (1995) Colony founding by queen association and determinants of reduction in queen number in the ant Lasius niger. Anim Behav 50:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Szathmáry E, Smith JM (1995) The major evolutionary transitions. Nature 374:227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Toth AL, Varala K, Newman TC, Miguez FE, Hutchison SK, Willoughby DA, Simons JF, Egholm M, Hunt JH, Hudson ME (2007) Wasp gene expression supports an evolutionary link between maternal behavior and eusociality. Science 318:441–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tschinkel WR (1998) An experimental study of pleometrotic colony founding in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta: what is the basis for association? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tschinkel WR, Howard DF (1983) Colony founding by pleometrosis in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uetz G, Hieber C (1997) Colonial web-building spiders: balancing the costs and benefits of group-living. In: Choe J, Crespi B (eds) Social behavior in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 458–475Google Scholar
  51. Visscher P, Morse R, Seeley T (1985) Honey bees choosing a home prefer previously occupied cavities. Insect Soc 32:217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Belknap, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rick Overson
    • 1
  • Juergen Gadau
    • 1
  • Rebecca M. Clark
    • 1
  • Stephen C. Pratt
    • 1
  • Jennifer H. Fewell
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations