Advertisement

Ant activity-rest rhythms vary with age and interaction frequencies of workers

  • Haruna Fujioka
  • Masato S. Abe
  • Yasukazu OkadaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Social insect colonies are highly organized systems, where communication among nestmates (i.e., social interactions) has a pivotal function for colonial organization. In order to further the understanding of social organization, the chronobiological system of social insect species, particularly their circadian rhythm, has recently attracted much attention. However, gaps still remain in our understanding of how individual active/rest rhythms are governed in various social contexts. In this study, we investigate the effects of worker-worker interactions on circadian activity rhythms, using the monomorphic ant, Diacamma sp. Continuous tracking of solitary ants elucidated circadian activity rhythms, both in young and old workers (< 30 days and > 70 days after eclosion, respectively). The color tag–based automatic tracking of multiple workers revealed that young-old interactions reduced circadian rhythmic activities in both young and old workers, whereas young workers retained active/rest rhythms under young-young worker interactions. Together with the analyses of worker-worker interaction frequencies, we conclude that interactions between workers in different age groups (i.e., workers with different tasks) function as different cues to alter worker active/rest patterns. We discuss the potential roles of worker-worker interactions on the chronobiological organization of the ant society.

Significance statement

In social animals, how individual behavioral rhythms are governed by social interactions is a fundamental question towards the mechanistic understanding of complex biological systems. Using an image-based tracking system, we composed artificial ant worker groups consisting of different functions (i.e., young nurses and old foragers) and investigated whether the age composition and the resulting interactions had an effect on the active/rest rhythms of individual workers, and of the whole group. In solitary conditions, both young and old workers showed circadian activity; however, when grouped with workers from different age groups, both young and old workers turned to show weak circadian rhythmicity or around-the-clock activity. Our results suggest that even simple social cues (i.e., frequency of contact with young and old workers) could alter worker activity patterns. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence showing that specific worker-worker interaction induces weakly rhythmic and/or arrhythmic states.

Keywords

Circadian rhythm Age Social interaction Diacamma sp. Image-based tracking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Tsuji K. for reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript. Uematsu J. kindly supported us for ant excavation. Many thanks to Hakataya S. for helping with the ant-keeping work. We appreciate the advice of Shimada M. for statistical evaluation and his valuable comments. Our thanks also go to reviewers and editors for careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions.

Funding information

This study was funded by the Kakenhi (#18H04815; 17H05938; 17K19381; 15H06830) and the Sasakawa Scientific Research Grants from The Japan Science Society.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2019_2641_MOESM1_ESM.docx (826 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 826 kb)

References

  1. Berk RA (1983) An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. Am Sociol Rev 48:386–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloch G (2010) The social clock of the honeybee. J Biol Rhythm 25:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloch G, Robinson GE (2001) Chronobiology - reversal of honeybee behavioural rhythms. Nature 410:1048–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloch G, Bar-Shai N, Cytter Y, Green R (2017) Time is honey: circadian clocks of bees and flowers and how their interactions may influence ecological communities. Philos Trans R Soc B 372:20160256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cuvillier-Hot V, Cobb M, Malosse C, Peeters C (2001) Sex, age and ovarian activity affect cuticular hydrocarbons in Diacamma ceylonense, a queenless ant. J Insect Physiol 47:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eban-Rothschild A, Bloch G (2012) Social influences on circadian rhythms and sleep in insects. Adv Genet 77:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuchikawa T, Okada Y, Miyatake T, Tsuji K (2014) Social dominance modifies behavioral rhythm in a queenless ant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1843–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuchikawa T, Beer K, Linke-Winnebeck C, Ben-David R, Kotowoy A, Tsang VWK, Warman GR, Winnebeck EC, Helfrich-Förster C, Bloch G (2017) Neuronal circadian clock protein oscillations are similar in behaviourally rhythmic forager honeybees and in arrhythmic nurses. Open Biology 7(6):170047Google Scholar
  9. Fujioka H, Abe MS, Fuchikawa T, Tsuji K, Shimada M, Okada Y (2017) Ant circadian activity associated with brood care type. Biol Lett 13(2):20160743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greene MJ, Gordon DM (2003) Social insects: cuticular hydrocarbons inform task decisions. Nature 423:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Ingram KK, Krummey S, LeRoux M (2009) Expression patterns of a circadian clock gene are associated with age-related polyethism in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. BMC Ecol 9:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ingram KK, Kutowoi A, Wurm Y, Shoemaker D, Meier R, Bloch G (2012) The molecular clockwork of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. PLoS One 7:e45715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kay J, Menegazzi P, Mildner S, Roces F, Helfrich-Förster C (2018) The circadian clock of the ant Camponotus floridanus is localized in dorsal and lateral neurons of the brain. J Biol Rhythm 33:255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kikuchi T, Suwabe M, Tsuji K (2010) Durability of information concerning the presence of a gamergate in Diacamma sp. from Japan. Physiol Entomol 35:93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klarsfeld A, Leloup J-C, Rouyer F (2003) Circadian rhythms of locomotor activity in Drosophila. Behav Process 64:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mersch DP, Crespi A, Keller L (2013) Tracking individuals shows spatial fidelity is a key regulator of ant social organization. Science 340:1090–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mildner S, Roces F (2017) Plasticity of daily behavioral rhythms in foragers and nurses of the ant Camponotus rufipes: influence of social context and feeding times. PLoS One 12:e0169244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moore D, Angel JE, Cheeseman IM, Fahrbach SE, Robinson GE (1998) Timekeeping in the honey bee colony: integration of circadian rhythms and division of labor. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nakata K (1995) Age polyethism, idiosyncrasy and behavioural flexibility in the queenless ponerine ant, Diacamma sp. J Ethol 13:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Okada Y, Watanabe Y, Tin MM, Tsuji K, Mikheyev AS (2017) Social dominance alters nutrition-related gene expression immediately: transcriptomic evidence from a monomorphic queenless ant. Mol Ecol 26:2922–2938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peeters C, Crewe R (1985) Worker reproduction in the Ponerine ant Ophthalmopone berthoudi - an alternative form of eusocial organization. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:29–37Google Scholar
  23. Pinter-Wollman N, Bala A, Merrell A, Queirolo J, Stumpe MC, Holmes S, Gordon DM (2013) Harvester ants use interactions to regulate forager activation and availability. Anim Behav 86:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Razin N, Eckmann J-P, Feinerman O (2013) Desert ants achieve reliable recruitment across noisy interactions. J R Soc Interface 10(82):20130079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saunders DS (2002) Insect clocks, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Sharma VK, Lone SR, Mathew D, Goel A, Chandrashekaran MK (2004) Possible evidence for shift work schedules in the media workers of the ant species Camponotus compressus. Chronobiol Int 21:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shemesh Y, Cohen M, Bloch G (2007) Natural plasticity in circadian rhythms is mediated by reorganization in the molecular clockwork in honeybees. FASEB J 21:2304–2311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shemesh Y, Eban-Rothschild A, Cohen M, Bloch G (2010) Molecular dynamics and social regulation of context-dependent plasticity in the circadian clockwork of the honey bee. J Neurosci 30:12517–12525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sokolove PG, Bushell WN (1978) The chi square periodogram: Its utility for analysis of circadian rhythms. Journal of Theoretical Biology 72(1):131–160Google Scholar
  30. Tschinkel WR, (2004) The nest architecture of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. Journal of Insect Science 4(1)4:21Google Scholar
  31. Tsuji K, Nakata K, Heinze J (1996) Lifespan and reproduction in a queenless ant. Naturwissenschaften 83(12):577–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Win AT, Machida Y, Miyamoto Y, Dobata S, Tsuji K (2018) Seasonal and temporal variations in colony-level foraging activity of a queenless ant, Diacamma sp., in Japan. J Ethol 36:277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Arts and SciencesThe University of TokyoMeguro-kuJapan
  2. 2.RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence ProjectChuo-kuJapan
  3. 3.National Institute of InformaticsChiyoda-kuJapan
  4. 4.JST, ERATO, Kawarabayashi Large Graph ProjectChiyoda-kuJapan
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesTokyo Metropolitan UniversityHachiojiJapan

Personalised recommendations