An apparent mutualism between Afrotropical ant species sharing the same nest
- 416 Downloads
Social insects have a highly developed nestmate and species recognition system that is quite effective at keeping out unwanted intruders. Rare cases of “parabiosis,” however, are known in some ants where two species apparently live peacefully alongside each other within the same nest. Here, we report on such an association between the tiny Afrotropical ant Strumigenys maynei and the large ant Platythyrea conradti. We demonstrated that both ants peacefully share the same arboreal nests in spite of the presence of clearly distinct nestmate recognition cues. Because of the large size differences, we hypothesized that each of the two species would benefit from specializing in carrying out particular tasks, in analogy to the size-related division of labor observed in species with size-polymorphic workers. In line with this theory, we found that the tiny ant S. maynei was highly efficient at nest defense against intranidal arthropods and alien ant intruders, whereas the large ant P. conradti was highly skilled in nest engineering. We argue that the described association is likely mutualistic, as P. conradti clearly benefited from the supreme defense capabilities of S. maynei, and that, conversely, S. maynei took advantage of small prey thriving in the organic nest material collected by P. conradti.
Associations between social insects are typically parasitic in nature. A few cases, however, are known of beneficial associations between social insects. Here, we report such a rare association between two Afrotropical species that share the same nest even though they lack matching colony odors. The large ant Platythyrea conradti benefited from the presence of Strumigenys maynei as this tiny, but highly aggressive, ant was much more efficient in attacking intranidal and extranidal enemies. S. maynei in turn took advantage of P. conradti as this ant constructs a unique nest which attracts suitable prey.
KeywordsAnt guests Caste Nest defense Polymorphism Symbiosis Task specialization
This research was supported by a type II grant of the Belgian Focal Point of the Global taxonomy Initiative, by a grant from the FWO Vlaanderen (Research Foundation Flanders) to TP (grant nr. 11D6414N) and by the Centre of Excellence grant PF/10/07-SEEDS. Field work and aggression experiments were done during the Ant and Bee course at Lamto. We would like to thank Sébastien Kouamé Kan Loukou, Nangounon Soro and Nanga Yeo for their assistance in the field and with their help in conducting preliminary experiments and Ricardo Caliari Oliveira for his assistance with the GCMS analysis. We are very grateful for the identification of the myrmecophile species by the following experts: Rafael Molero Baltanás (Thysanura), Frans Janssens (Collembola), Paweł Jałoszyński (Scydmaeninae), Volker Brachat (Pselaphinae) and Tim Struyve (Staphylinidae).
- Bolton B (2000) The ant tribe Dacetini. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 65:1–1028Google Scholar
- Buschinger A (2009) Social parasitism among ants: a review (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 12:219–235Google Scholar
- Jandt JM, Bengston S, Pinter-wollman N et al (2013) Behavioural syndromes and social insects: personality at multiple levels. Biol Rev 89:48–67. doi: 10.1111/brv.12042
- Lamon B, Topoff H (1981) Avoiding predation by army ants: defensive behaviours of three ant species of the genus Camponotus. Anim Behav 29:1070–1081. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80060-7
- Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, NJ. Princeton.Google Scholar
- Parmentier T, Bouillon S, Dekoninck W, Wenseleers T (2016) Trophic interactions in an ant nest microcosm: a combined experimental and stable isotope (δ13C/δ15N) approach. Oikos 125:1182–1192. doi: 10.1111/oik.02991Google Scholar
- van Zweden JS, d’Ettorre P (2010) Nestmate recognition in social insects and the role of hydrocarbons. In: Blomquist GJ, Bagnères A-G (eds) Insect hydrocarbons: biology, biochemistry, and chemical ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 222–243Google Scholar