Chemical mimicry or crypsis—the evolutionary game played by parasitic ants invading other colonies
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.
KeywordsAnt nest parasites Chemical strategy Mimicry Crypsis
We thank T. Akino, M. Hojo, M. Maruyama, K. Tsuji, and J. Wang for their very helpful comments.
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.
- 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
- Breed MD, Cook C, Krasnec MO (2012) Cleptobiosis in social insects. Psyche, 488765. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/484765
- 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
- Stevens M (2013) Sensory ecology, behaviour, and evolution. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Vander Meer RK, Morel L (1998) Nestmate recognition in ants. Pheromone Communication in Social Insects:79–103Google Scholar