Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 303–308 | Cite as

Male production by workers in the polygynous ant Prolasius advenus

Research Article

Abstract

The ability of workers to produce male individuals is reported here for the first time in a species of the formicine ant genus Prolasius. We show that Prolasius advenus workers possess ovaries and demonstrate that they are able to produce adult males in queenless colonies. We also experimentally tested the influence of queen volatiles on the level of worker reproduction. Workers produced fewer eggs in treatments where they could perceive odors from queens. Some volatile compounds emitted by queens may thus have a signaling or inhibitory effect on worker reproduction. This effect of queen presence did not entirely stop worker reproduction, however, as adult males still emerged under these conditions. Worker-produced males were absent only in treatments with the physical presence of queens. Dissections of workers collected from queenright nests in the field revealed signs of egg-laying activity in more than half of individuals. Together, these results suggest that in nature P. advenus workers produce males at least in orphaned colonies or in situations where the physical presence of queens is limited.

Keywords

Worker reproduction Ant males Prolasius advenus Reproductive conflicts 

References

  1. Bourke A.F.G.1988. Worker reproduction in the higher eusocial Hymenoptera. Q. Rev. Biol. 63: 291–311Google Scholar
  2. Brunner E. and Heinze J. 2009.Worker dominance and policing in the ant Temnothorax unifasciatus. Insect. Soc. 56: 397–404Google Scholar
  3. Brunner E., Kroiss J., Trindl A. and Heinze J. 2011. Queen pheromones in Temnothorax ants: control or honest signal? BMC Evol. Biol. 11: 55Google Scholar
  4. Coston D.J., Gill R.J. and Hammond R.L. 2011. No evidence of volatile chemicals regulating reproduction in a multiple queen ant. Naturwissenschaften 98: 625–629Google Scholar
  5. Dietemann V., Hölldobler B. and Peeters C. 2002.Caste specialization and differentiation in reproductive potential in the phylogenetically primitive ant Myrmecia gulosa. Insect. Soc. 49: 289–298Google Scholar
  6. Don W. 2007. Ants of New Zealand. Otago University Press, Dunedin, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  7. Endler A., Liebig J., Schmitt T., Parker J.E., Jones G.R., Schreier P. and Hölldobler B. 2004. Surface hydrocarbons of queen eggs regulate worker reproduction in a social insect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101: 2945–2950Google Scholar
  8. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G. and Buchner A. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Meth. 39: 175–191Google Scholar
  9. Gobin B., Billen J. and Peeters C. 1999. Policing behaviour towards virgin egg layers in a polygynous ponerine ant. Anim. Behav. 58: 1117–1122Google Scholar
  10. Grangier J. and Lester PJ. 2011. A novel interference behaviour: invasive wasps remove ants from resources and drop them from a height. Biol. Lett. 7: 664–667Google Scholar
  11. Hammond R.L. and Keller L. 2004.Conflict over male parentage in social insects. PLOS Biology 2: 1472–1482Google Scholar
  12. Heinze J. and d’Ettorre P. 2009. Honest and dishonest communication in social Hymenoptera. J. Exp. Biol. 212: 1775–1779Google Scholar
  13. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  14. Holman L., Jørgensen C.G., Nielsen J. and d’Ettorre P. 2010. Identification of an ant queen pheromone regulating worker sterility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 277: 3793–3800Google Scholar
  15. Keller L. and Nonacs P. 1993. The role of queen pheromones in social insects: queen control or queen signal? Anim. Behav. 45: 787–794Google Scholar
  16. Monnin T. 2006. Chemical recognition of reproductive status in social insects. Ann. Zool. Fennici 43: 515–530Google Scholar
  17. Ohtsuki H. and Tsuji K. 2009. Adaptive reproduction schedule as a cause of worker policing in social Hymenoptera: a dynamic game analysis. Am. Nat. 173: 747–758Google Scholar
  18. Peeters C., Liebig J. and Hölldobler B. 2000. Sexual reproduction by both queens and workers in the ponerine ant Harpegnathos saltator. Insect. Soc. 47: 325–332Google Scholar
  19. Smith A.A., Hölldobler B. and Liebig J. 2011.Reclaiming the crown: queen to worker conflict over reproduction in Aphaenogaster cockerelli. Naturwissenschaften 3: 237–240Google Scholar
  20. Smith C.E. 1969. A morphological and behavioural study of the ants Amblyopone saundersi Forel and Prolasius advena Fr. Smith (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Unpublished BSc(Hons) thesis, University of Otago, DunedinGoogle Scholar
  21. Shattuck S.O. 1999. Australian Ants: Their Biology and Identification. Monographs in Invertebrate Taxonomy. Volume 3Google Scholar
  22. Tsuji K., Egashira K. and Hölldobler B. 1999. Regulation of worker reproduction by direct physical contact in the ant Diacamma sp. from Japan. Anim. Behav. 58: 337–343Google Scholar
  23. Van Zweden J.S. 2010. The evolution of honest queen pheromones in insect societies. Commun. Integr. Biol. 3: 50–52Google Scholar
  24. Wenseleers T. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 2006. Comparative analysis of worker reproduction and policing in eusocial Hymenoptera supports relatedness theory. Am. Nat. 168: 163–179Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology, School of Biological SciencesVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations