Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 41–53

The role of per-capita productivity in the evolution of small colony sizes in ants

Original Paper


The evolution of colony size in social insects is influenced by both extrinsic and colony-intrinsic factors. An important intrinsic trait, per-capita productivity, often declines in larger colonies. This pattern, known as Michener’s paradox, can limit the growth of insect societies. In this study, we first describe this problem, survey its occurrence across different ant species, and present a case study of eight cavity-dwelling ants with very small colony sizes. In these species, colonies might never reach sizes at which per-capita productivity decreases. However, in six out of the eight focal species, per-capita productivity did decline with increasing size, in accordance with other studies on per-capita productivity in ants. Several mechanisms, such as resource availability or nest-site limitation, may explain the decrease in per-capita productivity with increases in colony size in our focal species. In these central-place foragers, the individual foraging mode is expected to lead to an increase in travel time as colonies grow. We suggest that polydomy, the concomitant occupation of several nest sites, could serve as a potential strategy to overcome this limitation. Indeed, for one species, we show that polydomy can help to circumvent the reduction in productivity with increasing colony size, suggesting that limited resource availability causes the observed decrease in per-capita productivity. Finally, we discuss the influence of other factors, such as the nesting ecology and colony homeostasis, on the evolution of colony size in these cavity-dwelling ants.


Colony size Leptothorax Social insects Productivity Per-capita productivity Michener effect Temnothorax 


  1. Alloway TM (1979) Raiding behavior of 2 species of slave-making ants, Harpagoxenus americanus (Emery) and Leptothorax duloticus Wesson (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Anim Behav 27:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckers R, Goss S, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1989) Colony size, communication and ant foraging strategy. Psyche 96:239–256Google Scholar
  3. Billick I (2001) Density dependence and colony growth in the ant species Formica neorufibarbis. J Anim Ecol 70:895–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourke AFG (1999) Colony size, social complexity and reproductive conflict in social insects. J Evol Biol 12:245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1979) A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society:1287–1294Google Scholar
  6. Brian MV (1953) Brood-rearing in relation to worker number in the ant Myrmica. Physiol Zool 26:355–366Google Scholar
  7. Brian MV (1956) Group form and causes of inefficiency in the ant Myrmica rubra L. Physiol Zool 29(3):173–194Google Scholar
  8. Byrne MM (1994) Ecology of twig-dwelling ants in a wet lowland tropical forest. Biotropica 26:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cade BS (2003) Quantile regression models of animal habitat relationships. PhD Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  10. Cade BS, Noon BR (2003) A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Front Ecol Environ 1:412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassill D (2002) Yoyo-bang: a risk-aversion investment strategy by a perennial insect society. Oecologia 132:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan GL, Hingle A, Bourke AFG (1999) Sex allocation in a facultatively polygynous ant: between-population and between-colony variation. Behav Ecol 10:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clouse R (2001) Some effects of group size on the output of beginning nests of Mischocyttarus mexicanus (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Fla Entomol 84:418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole BJ (1984) Colony efficiency and the reproductivity effect in Leptothorax allardycei (Mann). Insectes Soc 31:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Core Development Team R (2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Austria, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  16. DeHeer CJ, Backus VL, Herbers JM (2001) Sociogenetic responses to ecological variation in the ant Myrmica punctiventris are context dependent. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dornhaus A, Holley J-A, Franks NR (2009) Larger colonies do not have more specialized workers in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol 20:922–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foitzik S, Heinze J (1998) Nest site limitation and colony takeover in the ant Leptothorax nylanderi. Behav Ecol 9:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foitzik S, Heinze J (2000) Intraspecific parasitism and split sex ratios in a monogynous and monandrous ant (Leptothorax nylanderi). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:424–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foitzik S, Herbers JM (2001) Colony structure of a slavemaking ant. I. Intracolony relatedness, worker reproduction, and polydomy. Evolution 55:307–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Foitzik S, Stratz M, Heinze J (2003) Ecology, life history and resource allocation in the ant, Leptothorax nylanderi. J Evol Biol 16:670–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foitzik S, Backus VL, Trindl A, Herbers JM (2004) Ecology of Leptothorax ants: impact of food, nest sites, and social parasites. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:484–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foitzik S, Achenbach A, Brandt M (2009) Locally adapted social parasite affects density, social structure, and life history of its ant hosts. Ecology 90:1195–1206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franks NR, Dornhaus A, Best CS, Jones EL (2006) Decision making by small and large house-hunting ant colonies: one size fits all. Anim Behav 72:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hee JJ, Holway DA, Suarez AV, Case TJ (2000) Role of propagule size in the success of incipient colonies of the invasive Argentine ant. Conserv Biol 14:559–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heinze J, Foitzik S, Hippert A, Hölldobler B (1996) Apparent dear-enemy phenomenon and environment-based recognition cues in the ant Leptothorax nylanderi. Ethology 102:510–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herbers JM (1986) Nest site limitation and facultative polygyny in the ant Leptothorax longispinosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herbers JM, Banschbach VS (1999) Plasticity of social organization in a forest ant species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:451–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herbers JM, Choiniere E (1996) Foraging behaviour and colony structure in ants. Anim Behav 51:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herbers JM, Johnson CA (2007) Social structure and winter survival in acorn ants. Oikos 116:829–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herbers JM, Stuart RJ (1996) Multiple queens in ant nests: impact on genetic structure and inclusive fitness. Am Nat 147:161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herbers JM, Stuart RJ (1998) Patterns of reproduction in slave-making ants. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:875–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA Google Scholar
  34. Hou C, Kaspari M, Vander Zanden HB, Gillooly JF (2010) Energetic basis of colonial living in social insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:3634–3638PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeanne RL, Nordheim EV (1996) Productivity in a social wasp: per capita output increases with swarm size. Behav Ecol 7:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jorgensen CD, Porter SD (1982) Foraging behavior of Pogonomyrmex owyheei in Southeast Idaho. Environ Entomol 11:381–384Google Scholar
  37. Jun J, Pepper JW, Savage M, Gillooly JF, Brown JH (2003) Allometric scaling of ant foraging trail networks. Evol Ecol Res 5:297–303Google Scholar
  38. Kaspari M (1996) Testing resource-based models of patchiness in four Neotropical litter ant assemblages. Oikos 76:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaspari M, Byrne MM (1995) Caste allocation in litter Pheidole—lessons from plant defense theory. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaspari M, Vargo EL (1995) Colony size as a buffer against seasonality: Bergmann’s rule in social insects. Am Nat 145:610–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koenker R (2011) Quantreg: quantile regression. R package version 4.62Google Scholar
  42. Koenker R, Bassett G Jr (1978) Regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society:33–50Google Scholar
  43. Koenker R, Hallock KF (2001) Quantile regression. J Eco Perspect 15:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kramer BH, Schaible R (2013) Colony size explains the lifespan differences between queens and workers in eusocial Hymenoptera. Biol J Linn Soc 109:710–724Google Scholar
  45. Litte M (1981) Social biology of the polistine wasp Mischocyttarus labiatus: survival in a Colombian rain forest. Smithson Contrib Zool 103:101–127Google Scholar
  46. Michener CD (1964) Reproductive efficiency in relation to colony size in Hymenopterous societes. Insectes Soc 11:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Möglich M (1978) Social organization of nest emigration in Leptothorax (Hym., Form.). Insectes Soc 25:205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Naug D, Wenzel J (2006) Constraints on foraging success due to resource ecology limit colony productivity in social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Monographs in Population Biology v. 12. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  50. Palmer TM (2004) Wars of attrition: colony size determines competitive outcomes in a guild of African acacia ants. Anim Behav 68:993–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pamminger T, Scharf I, Pennings PS, Foitzik S (2011) Increased host aggression as an induced defense against slave-making ants. Behav Ecol 22:255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pasquet A, Krafft B (1992) Cooperation and prey capture efficiency in a social spider, Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). Ethology 90:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pedersen JS, Boomsma JJ (1999) Genetic analysis of colony structure in polydomous and polygynous ant populations. Biol J Linn Soc 66:115–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pohl S, Foitzik S (2011) Slave-making ants prefer larger, better defended host colonies. Anim Behav 81:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Porter SD, Tschinkel WR (1985) Fire ant polymorphism—the ergonomics of brood production. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pratt SC, Pierce NE (2001) The cavity-dwelling ant Leptothorax curvispinosus uses nest geometry to discriminate between potential homes. Anim Behav 62:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using molecular markers. Evolution 43:258–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division-of-labor in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 37:637–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scharf I, Bauer S, Fischer-Blass B, Foitzik S (2011a) Impact of a social parasite on ant host populations depends on host species, habitat and year. Biol J Linn Soc 103:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scharf I, Fischer-Blass B, Foitzik S (2011b) Spatial structure and nest demography reveal the influence of competition, parasitism and habitat quality on slavemaking ants and their hosts. BMC Ecol 11:9PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sorvari J, Hakkarainen H (2007) The role of food and colony size in sexual offspring production in a social insect: an experiment. Ecol Entomol 32:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevens MI, Hogendoorn K, Schwarz MP (2007) Evolution of sociality by natural selection on variances in reproductive fitness: evidence from a social bee. BMC Evol Biol 7:153Google Scholar
  64. Strätz M, Heinze J (2004) Colony structure and sex allocation ratios in the ant Temnothorax crassispinus. Insectes Soc 51:372–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stuart RJ, Alloway TM (1988) Aberrant yellow ants: North American Leptothorax species as intermediate hosts of cestodes. In: Advances in myrmecology. E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp 537–545Google Scholar
  66. Sudd JH, Franks NR ( 1987) The behavioural ecology of ants. Chapman & Hall, New York Google Scholar
  67. Tindo M, Kenne M, Dejean A (2008) Advantages of multiple foundress colonies in Belonogaster juncea juncea L.: greater survival and increased productivity. Ecol Entomol 33:293–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tschinkel WR (1993) Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta during one annual cycle. Ecol Monogr 63:425–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tschinkel WR (1999) Sociometry and sociogenesis of colony-level attributes of the Florida harvester ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 92:80–89Google Scholar
  70. Wang J (2011) COANCESTRY: a program for simulating, estimating and analysing relatedness and inbreeding coefficients. Mol Ecol Resour 11:141–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Waters JS, Holbrook CT, Fewell JH, Harrison JF (2010) Allometric scaling of metabolism, growth, and activity in whole colonies of the seed-harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Am Nat 176:501–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wcislo WT, Tierney SM (2009) The evolution of communal behavior in bees and wasps: an alternative to eusociality. In: Gadau J, Fewell J (eds) Organization of insect societies: from genome to sociocomplexity. Harvard University Press, Harvard, pp 148–169Google Scholar
  73. Wenzel JW, Pickering J (1991) Cooperative foraging, productivity, and the central-limit-theorem. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88:36–38PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson EO (1974) The population consequences of polygyny in the ant Leptothorax curvispinosus Mayr. Ann Entomol Soc Am 67(5):781–786Google Scholar
  75. Yip EC, Powers KS, Aviles L (2008) Cooperative capture of large prey solves scaling challenge faced by spider societies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:11818–11822PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris H. Kramer
    • 1
  • Inon Scharf
    • 2
  • Susanne Foitzik
    • 3
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life SciencesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Institute of ZoologyJohannes Gutenberg University of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations