Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 175–183 | Cite as

Ontogeny of nestmate recognition cues in the red carpenter ant (Camponotus floridanus)

Behavioral and chemical evidence for the role of age and social experience
  • Laurence Morel
  • Robert K. Vander Meer
  • Barry K. Lavine
Article

Summary

A combination of behavioral and chemical analyses was used to investigate the nature of nestmate recognition cues and the effects of worker age and social experience on these cues in the ant Camponotus floridanus. Five categories of workers were tested: foragers, 5-day old and 0-day old callows, 5-day old and 0-day old naive callows. Bioassays consisted of introductions of dead workers from these categories into their own colonies or into an alien colony after the following treatments: 1) killed by freezing, 2) solvent-washed, 3) solvent-washed and coated with a nestmate soak, 4) solvent-washed and coated with a non-nestmate soak. Soaks were obtained from individual ants immersed in hexane and were applied individually to washed workers from the same category. Soaks were analyzed by gas chromatography (GC) and compared by multivariate analyses. Freeze-killed workers from each category elicited more aggressive behavior in the alien colony than in its own. By comparing GC profiles, a worker from any category can be assigned to its colony of origin. Thus all studied worker categories are colony-specific. Solvent-washed ants did not induce more aggressive behaviors in the alien colony than in their own, but they induced significantly less aggressivity in an alien colony than non-treated dead ants from the same category. Washed ants indced more aggressive behaviors when coated with a soak from a different colony as opposed to a soak from the colony in which they were introduced. The combination of behavioral and chemical results lead to the following conclusions: 1) Information contained in soak derived from workers was sufficient to allow nestmate recognition. 2) Nestmate recognition cues, and consequently the recognition response displayed to their bearer, change with age. 3) Social experience is necessary to develop or acquire a colony-specific label. The role of age and social experience on nestmate recognition in social Hymenoptera is discussed.

Keywords

Chemical Analysis Multivariate Analysis Hexane Aggressive Behavior Social Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beecher MD (1982) Signature systems and kin recognition. Am Zool 22:477–490Google Scholar
  2. Bonavita-Cougourdan A, Clement JL, Lange C (1987) Nestmate recognition: Cuticular hydrocarbons and colony odor in the ant Camponotus vagus Scop. J Entomol Sci 22:1–10Google Scholar
  3. Bonavita-Cougourdan A, Clement JL (1987) Sub-caste discrimination in the ant Camponotus vagus Scop. In: Eder J, Rembold H (eds) Chemistry and biology of social insects. Proc 10th int Cong IUSSI, Peperny, München, p 475Google Scholar
  4. Breed MD (1983) Nestmate recognition in honeybees. Anim Behav 31:86–91Google Scholar
  5. Breed MD, Bennett B (1988) Kin recognition in highly social insects. In: Fletcher DJC, Michener CD (eds) Kin recognition in animals Wiley, New York (in press)Google Scholar
  6. Carlin NF, Hölldobler B (1983) Nestmate and kin recognition in interspecific mixed colonies of ants. Science 222:1027–1029Google Scholar
  7. Carlin NF, Hölldobler B (1986) The kin recognition system of carpenter ants (Camponotus spp.). I. Hierarchical cues in small colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:123–134Google Scholar
  8. Carlin NF, Hölldobler B (1987a) The kin recognition system of carpenter ants (Camponotus spp.). II. Larger colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:209–217Google Scholar
  9. Carlin NF, Hölldobler B (1987b) The kin recognition system of carpenter ants (Camponotus spp.). III: Within-colony discrimination. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:219–227Google Scholar
  10. Errard C (1984) Evolution en fonction de l'age des relations sociales dans les colonies mixtes plurispecifiques chez les fourmis des genres Camponotus et Pseudomyrmex. Insectes Soc 31:185–194Google Scholar
  11. Errard C (1986) Role of early experience in mixed-colony odor recognition in the ants Manica rubida and Formica selysi. Ethology 72:243–249Google Scholar
  12. Errard C, Jallon JM (1987) An investigation of the development of chemical factors in ants intrasociety recognition. In: Eder J, Rembold H (eds) Chemistry and biology of social insects. Proc 10th Int Cong IUSSI, Peperny, München, p 478Google Scholar
  13. Gamboa GJ, Reeve HK, Fergusson ID, Wacker TL (1986a) Nestmate recognition in social wasps: The origin and acquisition of recognition odours. Anim Behav 34:685–695Google Scholar
  14. Gamboa GJ, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1986b) The evolution and ontogeny of nestmate recognition in social wasps. Ann Rev Entomol 31:431–454Google Scholar
  15. Gadagkar R (1985) Kin recognition in social insects and other animals — A review of recent findings and a consideration of their relevance for the theory of kin selection. Proc Indian Acad Sci (Anim Sci) 94:587–621Google Scholar
  16. Getz WM (1982) An analysis of learned kin recognition in social Hymenoptera. J Theor Biol 99:585–597Google Scholar
  17. Hölldobler B, Michener CD (1980) Mechanisms of identification and discrimination in social Hymenoptera. In: Markl H (ed) Evolution of social behavior: Hypotheses and empirical tests. Dahlem Konferenzen 1980. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, pp 35–58Google Scholar
  18. Jackson LL, Bartelt RJ (1986) Cuticular hydrocarbons of Drosophila virilis. Comparison by age and sex. Insect Biochem 16:433–439Google Scholar
  19. Jaisson P (1971) Experiences sur l'agressivite chez les fourmis. CR Acad Sci Paris ser D 273:2320–2323Google Scholar
  20. Jaisson P (1972a) Nouvelles experiences sur l'agressivite chez les fourmis; existence probable d'une substance active inhibitrice de l'agressivite et secretee par la jeune formicine. CR Acad Sci Paris ser D 274:302–305Google Scholar
  21. Jaisson P (1972b) Mise en evidence d'une pheromone d'attractivite produite par la jeune ouvriere de Formica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). CR Acad Sci Paris ser D 274:429–432Google Scholar
  22. Jolliffe IT (1986) Principal Component Analysis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Moli F, Mori A (1984) The effect of early experience on the development of “aggressive” behaviour in Formica lugubris Zett. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Z Tierpsychol 65:241–249Google Scholar
  24. Le Moli F, Mori A (1985) The influence of early experience of worker ants on enslavement. Anim Behav 33:1384–1387Google Scholar
  25. Lenoir A, Isingrini M, Nowbahari M (1982) Le comportement d'ouvrieres de Cataglyphis cursor introduites dans une colonie etrangere de meme espece. In: De Haro A, Espadaler X (eds) La communication dans les societes d'insectes, Univ Aut Barcelona, pp 107–114Google Scholar
  26. Mintzer A (1982) Nestmate recognition and incompability between colonies of the acacia ant Pseudomyrmex ferruginea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:165–168Google Scholar
  27. Morel L (1983) Relation entre comportement agressif et privation sociale prococe chez les jeunes immatures de la fourmi Camponotus vagus Scop. C R Acad Sci Paris ser D 296:449–452Google Scholar
  28. Morel L (1986) Ontogenesis of antennal activity associated with food transfer in the callow worker ant. Dev Psychobiol 19:413–426Google Scholar
  29. Morel L (1988) Ontogenese de la reconnaissance des membres de la societé chez Camponotus floridanus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Role de l'expérience sociale précoce. Biol Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  30. Morel L, Blum MS (1988) Nestmate recognition in Camponotus floridanus callow worker ants; are sisters or nestmates recognized? Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Obin MS (1986) Nestmate recognition cues in laboratory and field colonies of Solenopsis invicta Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Effect of the environment and role of the hydrocarbons. J Chem Ecol 12:1965–1975Google Scholar
  32. Provost E (1985) Social environment factors influencing mutual recognition in an ant society. 3rd European Conf Int Soc Res Aggression, Parma (abstract)Google Scholar
  33. Tou JT, Gonzalez RC (1974) Pattern recognition principles. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Vander Meer RK (1988) Behavioral and biochemical variation in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. In: RL Jeanne (ed) Interin-dividual behavioral variability in social insects, Westview Press, Boulder, CO (in press)Google Scholar
  35. Vander Meer RK, Wojcik DP (1982) Chemical mimicry in the myrmecophilous beetle Myrmecaphodius excavaticollis. Science 218:806–808Google Scholar
  36. Wallis DI (1962) Aggressive behaviour in the ant Formica fusca. Anim Behav 10:267–274Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurence Morel
    • 1
  • Robert K. Vander Meer
    • 2
  • Barry K. Lavine
    • 3
  1. 1.Equipe EthologieCNRSMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Insects Affecting Man and Animals LaboratoryUSDA-ARSGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryClarkson UniversityPostdamUSA

Personalised recommendations