Advertisement

Chemical mimicry or crypsis—the evolutionary game played by parasitic ants invading other colonies

  • Shinsuke SatoiEmail author
  • Yoh Iwasa
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Some ant species are specialised parasites that invade the nests of other ants and steal their food, larvae, and eggs. To be successful, they must evade detection by patrolling hosts who attack invaders. Ants distinguish invaders from individuals of their own nest through the cuticular hydrocarbon profile, as their nestmates have a similar mixture of coating chemicals. To circumvent this, some parasites adopt mimicry, using a mixture of chemicals that has a similar composition to that of their hosts, whilst others adopt crypsis, with a reduced amount of chemicals. Here, we develop a mathematical model to describe the conditions under which each of these strategies evolves, assuming that the parasites and hosts are ants with their own colonies. Host ants distinguish their nestmates from parasites through differences in their chemical traits, which are represented in multi-dimensional space. Parasitic ants engage in competition with other conspecific colonies, which is more intense between colonies with similar chemical traits, jeopardising the advantage of cryptic parasites. We then define parasites’ fitness with respect to chemical profiles and discuss the evolution of their chemical strategies. Cryptic parasites evolve when competition among colonies is weak, when many types of host colonies exist, and when host recognition accuracy is high. Mimetic parasites evolve under the opposite conditions.

Keywords

Ant nest parasites Chemical strategy Mimicry Crypsis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank T. Akino, M. Hojo, M. Maruyama, K. Tsuji, and J. Wang for their very helpful comments.

Funding information

This work has been supported by a research fellowship for Young Scientists (DC1) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to S.S., a Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists No. JP16J01030 to S.S., a Grant-in-Aid for Basic Scientific Research (B) No. JP15H004423 to Y.I., and The Natio Foundation.

References

  1. Akino T (2008) Chemical strategies to deal with ants: a review of mimicry, camouflage, propaganda, and phytomimesis by ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and other arthropods. Myrmecological News 11:173–181Google Scholar
  2. Akino T, Terayama M, Wakamura S, Yamaoka R (2002) Intraspecific variation of cuticular hydrocarbon composition in Formica japonica Motschoulsky (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zool Sci 19(10):1155–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akino T, Yamamura K, Wakamura S, Yamaoka R (2004) Direct behavioral evidence for hydrocarbons as nestmate recognition cues in Formica japonica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Appl Entomol Zool 39(3):381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowers MD, Larin Z (1989) Acquired chemical defense in the lycaenid butterfly, Eumaeus atala. J Chem Ecol 15(4):1133–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt M, Heinze J, Schmitt T, Foitzik S (2005) A chemical level in the coevolutionary arms race between an ant social parasite and its hosts. J Evol Biol 18(3):576–586.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00867.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Breed MD, Cook C, Krasnec MO (2012) Cleptobiosis in social insects. Psyche, 488765.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/484765
  7. Cappa F, Bruschini C, Cipollini M, Pieraccini G, Cervo R (2014) Sensing the intruder: a quantitative threshold for recognition cues perception in honeybees. Naturwissenschaften 101(2):149–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-013-1135-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronin AL, Fédérici P, Doums C, Monnin T (2012) The influence of intraspecific competition on resource allocation during dependent colony foundation in a social insect. Oecologia 168(2):361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheney KL (2012) Cleaner wrasse mimics inflict higher costs on their models when they are more aggressive towards signal receivers. Biol Lett 8(1):10–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cini A, Gioli L, Cervo R (2009) A quantitative threshold for nest-mate recognition in a paper social wasp. Biol Lett 5(4):459–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dettner K, Liepert C (1994) Chemical mimicry and camouflage. Annu Rev Entomol 39:129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elgar MA, Allan RA (2004) Predatory spider mimics acquire colony-specific cuticular hydrocarbons from their ant model prey. Naturwissenschaften 91(3):143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ettershank G, Ettershank J (1982) Ritualised fighting in the meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus (Smith)(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Aust J Entomol 21(2):97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fielde AM (1905) The progressive odor of ants. Biol Bull 10(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fürst MA, Durey M, Nash DR (2012) Testing the adjustable threshold model for intruder recognition on Myrmica ants in the context of a social parasite. Proc Biol Sci 279(1728):516–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gavrilets S (1997) Coevolutionary chase in exploiter–victim systems with polygenic characters. J Theor Biol 186(4):527–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordon DM (1991) Behavioral flexibility and the foraging ecology of seed-eating ants. Am Nat 138:379–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hölldobler B (1976) Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1(1):3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hölldobler B (1983) Territorial behavior in the green tree ant (Oecophylla smaragdina). Biotropica 15:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard RW, Blomquist GJ (2005) Ecological, behavioral, and biochemical aspects of insect hydrocarbons. Annu Rev Entomol 50:371–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang J-N, Cheng R-C, Li D, Tso I-M (2010) Salticid predation as one potential driving force of ant mimicry in jumping spiders. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 278:1356–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jandt JM, Hunt EM, McGlynn TP (2015) Intraspecific food-robbing and neighborhood competition: consequences for anti-robber vigilance and colony productivity. Biotropica 47(4):491–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kilner RM, Langmore NE (2011) Cuckoos versus hosts in insects and birds: adaptations, counter-adaptations and outcomes. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 86(4):836–852.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00173.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenoir A, D'Ettorre P, Errard C, Hefetz A (2001) Chemical ecology and social parasitism in ants. Annu Rev Entomol 46:573–599.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.573 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenoir A, Fresneau D, Errard C, Hefetz A (1999) Individuality and colonial identity in ants: the emergence of the social representation concept. In: Dertain C, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (eds) Information processing in social insects. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, pp 219–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lhomme P, Ayasse M, Valterova I, Lecocq T, Rasmont P (2012) Born in an alien nest : how do social parasite male offspring escape from host aggression? PLoS One 7(9):e43053.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043053 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin S, Drijfhout F (2009) A review of ant cuticular hydrocarbons. J Chem Ecol 35(10):1151–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maschwitz U, Dorow W, Buschinger A, Kalytta G (2000) Social parasitism involving ants of different subfamilies: Polyrhachis lama (Formicinae) an obligatory inquiline of Diacamma sp.(Ponerinae) in Java. Insect Soc 47(1):27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maschwitz U, Go C, Kaufmann E, Buschinger A (2004) A unique strategy of host colony exploitation in a parasitic ant: workers of Polyrhachis lama rear their brood in neighbouring host nests. Naturwissenschaften 91(1):40–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morel L, Vander Meer RK, Lavine BK (1988) Ontogeny of nestmate recognition cues in the red carpenter ant (Camponotus floridanus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22(3):175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mori n A, D'Ettorre P, Le Moli F (1995) Host nest usurpation and colony foundation in the European amazon ant, Polyergus rufescens Latr.(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Soc 42(3):279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nash DR, Als TD, Maile R, Jones GR, Boomsma JJ (2008) A mosaic of chemical coevolution in a large blue butterfly. Science 319:88–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nehring V, Dani FR, Turillazzi S, Boomsma JJ, D'Ettorre P (2015) Integration strategies of a leaf-cutting ant social parasite. Anim Behav 108:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ozaki, M., & Wada-Katsumata, A. (2010). Perception and olfaction of cuticular compounds. Insect hydrocarbons: biology, biochemistry and chemical ecology (Ed. by Blomquist G.J. and Bagneres A-G.), 10, pp. 207–221, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Pasteur G (1982) A classification review of mimicry systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:169–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (1993) Cleptobiosis in the antEctatomma ruidum in Nicaragua. Insect Soc 40(3):295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Lotem A (1999) How to detect a cuckoo egg: a signal-detection theory model for recognition and learning. Am Nat 153(6):633–648PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryti RT, Case TJ (1988) Field experiments on desert ants: testing for competition between colonies. Ecology 69(6):1993–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saul-Gershenz LS, Millar JG (2006) Phoretic nest parasites use sexual deception to obtain transport to their host’s nest. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(38):14039–14044.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603901103 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Singer TL (1998) Roles of hydrocarbons in the recognition systems of insects. Am Zool 38(2):394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sledge MF, Dani FR, Cervo R, Dapporto L, Turillazzi S (2001) Recognition of social parasites as nest-mates: adoption of colony-specific host cuticular odours by the paper wasp parasite Polistes sulcifer. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268(1482):2253–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stevens M (2013) Sensory ecology, behaviour, and evolution. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. Sumner S, Nash DR, Boomsma JJ (2003) The adaptive significance of inquiline parasite workers. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270(1521):1315–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Topoff H, Zimmerli E (1993) Colony takeover by a socially parasitic ant, Polyergus breviceps: the role of chemicals obtained during host-queen killing. Anim Behav 46(3):479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Zweden, J. S., & d’Ettorre, P. (2010). Nestmate recognition in social insects and the role of hydrocarbons. Insect hydrocarbons: biology, biochemistry and chemical ecology (Ed. by Blomquist G.J. and Bagneres A-G.), 11, pp. 222–243, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Vander Meer RK, Morel L (1998) Nestmate recognition in ants. Pheromone Communication in Social Insects:79–103Google Scholar
  47. von Beeren CV, Schulz S, Hashim R, Witte V (2011) Acquisition of chemical recognition cues facilitates integration into ant societies. BMC Ecology 11:30.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-11-30 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ward S (1996) A new workerless social parasite in the ant genus Pseudomyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), with a discussion of the origin of social parasitism in ants. Syst Entomol 21(3):253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Witte V, Lehmann L, Lustig A, Maschwitz U (2009) Polyrhachis lama, a parasitic ant with an exceptional mode of social integration. Insect Soc 56(3):301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yamaguchi T (1995) Intraspecific competition through food robbing in the harvester ant, Messor aciculatus (Fr. Smith), and its consequences on colony survival. Insect Soc 42(1):89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology, Faculty of SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Bioscience, School of Science and TechnologyKwansei-Gakuin UniversityHyogoJapan

Personalised recommendations