Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 139–144 | Cite as

Queen–worker caste ratio depends on colony size in the pharaoh ant (Monomorium pharaonis)

  • A. M. Schmidt
  • T. A. Linksvayer
  • J. J. Boomsma
  • J. S. Pedersen
Research Article


The success of an ant colony depends on the simultaneous presence of reproducing queens and non-reproducing workers in a ratio that will maximize colony growth and reproduction. Despite its presumably crucial role, queen–worker caste ratios (the ratio of adult queens to workers) and the factors affecting this variable remain scarcely studied. Maintaining polygynous pharaoh ant (Monomorium pharaonis) colonies in the laboratory has provided us with the opportunity to experimentally manipulate colony size, one of the key factors that can be expected to affect colony level queen–worker caste ratios and body size of eclosing workers, gynes and males. We found that smaller colonies produced more new queens relative to workers, and that these queens and workers both tended to be larger. However, colony size had no effect on the size of males or on the sex ratio of the individuals reared. Furthermore, for the first time in a social insect, we confirmed the general life history prediction by Smith and Fretwell (Am Nat 108:499–506, 1974) that offspring number varies more than offspring size. Our findings document a high level of plasticity in energy allocation toward female castes and suggest that polygynous species with budding colonies may adaptively adjust caste ratios to ensure rapid growth.


Caste Colony size Ergonomics Resource allocation Polygyny 



We thank Christa Funch Jensen, Isabel Højgaard Rasmussen, Markus Drag, Mathilde Lerche-Jørgensen, Nathia Hass Brandtberg and Signe Lolle for help sorting, feeding, and measuring ants. The study was supported by The Danish National Research Foundation (AMS, JJB, JSP) and an EU Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship (TAL).


  1. Anderson K.E., Linksvayer T.A. and Smith C.R. 2008. The causes and consequences of genetic caste determination in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol. News 11: 119-132Google Scholar
  2. Berndt K.P. and Eichler W. 1987. Die Pharaoameise, Monomorium pharaonis (L.) (Hym., Myrmicidae). Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berl. 63: 3 -186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourke A.F.G. and Franks N.R. 1995. Social Evolution in Ants. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 529 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourke A.F.G. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 1999. Kin conflict over caste determination in social Hymenoptera. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46: 287-297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buczkowski G. and Bennett G. 2009. Colony budding and its effects on food allocation in the highly polygynous ant, Monomorium pharaonis. Ethology 115: 1091-1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crozier R.H. and Pamilo P. 1996. Evolution of Social Insect Colonies: Sex Allocation and Kin Selection. Oxford University Press, New York. 306 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards J.P. 1986. The biology, economic importance, and control of the Pharaoh’s Ant. In: Economic Impact and Control of Social Insects (S.B. Vinson, Ed). Praeger Publishers, New York, pp 257-271Google Scholar
  8. Edwards J.P. 1987. Caste regulation in the pharaoh’s ant Monomorium pharaonis: the influence of queens on the production of new sexual forms. Physiol. Entomol. 12: 31-39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards J.P. 1991. Caste regulation in the pharaoh’s ant Monomorium pharaonis: recognition and cannibalism of sexual brood by workers. Physiol. Entomol. 16: 263-271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glancey B.M. and Lofgren C.S. 1988. Adoption of newly-mated queens; a mechanism for proliferation and perpetuation of polygynous red imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta, Buren. Florida Entomol. 71: 581-587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes W.O.H. and Boomsma J.J. 2008. Genetic royal cheats in leaf-cutting ant societies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105: 5150-5153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. Springer, New York. 732 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaffe R., Kronauer D.J.C., Kraus F.B., Boomsma J.J. and Moritz R.F.A. 2007. Worker caste determination in the army ant Eciton burchellii. Biol. Lett. 3: 513-516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klobuchar E.A. and Deslippe R.J. 2002. A queen pheromone induces workers to kill sexual larvae in colonies of the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta). Naturwissenschaften 89: 302-304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McGlynn T.P. and Owen J.P. 2002. Food supplementation alters caste allocation in a natural population of Pheidole flavens, a dimorphic leaf-litter dwelling ant. Insect. Soc. 49: 8-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nonacs P. 1988. Queen number in colonies of social Hymenoptera as kin-selected adaptation. Evolution 42: 566-580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nonacs P. 1993. The effects of polygyny and colony life history on optimal sex investment. In: Queen Number and Sociality in Insects (L. Keller, Ed). Oxford University Press, New York, pp 110-131Google Scholar
  18. Oster G.F. and Wilson E.O. 1978. Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects, vol 12. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 352 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Pamilo P. 1991. Evolution of colony characteristics in social insects .1. sex allocation. Am. Nat. 137: 83-107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Passera L., Roncin E., Kaufmann B. and Keller L. 1996. Increased soldier production in ant colonies exposed to intraspecific competition. Nature 379: 630-631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peacock A.D. and Baxter A.T. 1949. Studies in Pharaoh’s ant, Monomorium pharaonis (L.). 1. The rearing of artificial colonies. Entomol. Mon. Mag. 85: 256-260Google Scholar
  22. Petersen-Braun M. 1975. Investigations on social organization in Pharaohs ant, Monomorium pharaonis L (Hym Formicidae) 1. Regulation of brood cycle. Insect. Soc. 22: 269-291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Petersen-Braun M. 1977. Investigations on social organization of Pharaohs ant Monomorium pharaonis L (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) 2. Caste determination. Insect. Soc. 24: 303-318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter S.D. and Tschinkel W.R. 1985a. Fire ant polymorphism (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): factors affecting worker size. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 78: 381-386Google Scholar
  25. Porter S.D. and Tschinkel W.R. 1985b. Fire ant polymorphism: the ergonomics of brood production. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 16: 323-336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
  27. Rüppell O. and Heinze J. 1999. Alternative reproductive tactics in females: the case of size polymorphism in winged ant queens. Insect. Soc. 46: 6-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt A.M., d’Ettorre P. and Pedersen J.S. 2010. Low levels of nestmate discrimination despite high genetic differentiation in the invasive pharaoh ant. Front. Zool. 7: 20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwander T., Humbert J.-Y., Brent C.S., Cahan S.H., Chapuis L., Renai E. and Keller L. 2008. Maternal effect on female caste determination in a social insect. Curr. Biol. 18: 265-269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwander T., Lo N., Beekman M., Oldroyd B.P. and Keller L. 2010. Nature versus nurture in social insect caste differentiation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25: 275-282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith C.C. and Fretwell S.D. 1974. Optimal balance between size and number of offspring. Am. Nat. 108: 499-506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tschinkel W.R. 1993. Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta during one annual cycle Ecol. Monogr. 63: 425-457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vargo E.L. and Fletcher D.J.C. 1986. Evidence of pheromonal queen control over the production of male and female sexuals in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. J. Comp. Physiol. A-Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 159: 741-749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vargo E.L. and Passera L. 1991. Pheromonal and behavioral queen control over the production of gynes in the Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28: 161-169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wheeler D.E. 1986. Developmental and physiological determinants of caste in social Hymenoptera: evolutionary implications. Am. Nat. 128: 13-34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson E.O. 1983. Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Atta). 4. Colony ontogeny of Atta cephalotes. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 55-60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Schmidt
    • 1
  • T. A. Linksvayer
    • 1
  • J. J. Boomsma
    • 1
  • J. S. Pedersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Centre for Social EvolutionUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations