Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 5–13 | Cite as

Are societies resilient? Challenges faced by social insects in a changing world

  • Kaleigh Fisher
  • Mari West
  • Adriana M. Lomeli
  • S. Hollis WoodardEmail author
  • Jessica PurcellEmail author


Social insects are considered to be highly successful and ecologically dominant because they comprise the majority of insect biomass in many ecosystems. One key to the success of social insects is their highly coordinated and organized behavior, which allows them to more efficiently exploit resources. However, as our world undergoes dramatic global changes, such as climate change, deforestation, and the introduction of invasive species, the very traits that have provided evolutionary advantages may become liabilities for some social insect species. Here we propose that some social traits, which are conventionally thought to be beneficial, will be detrimental in the context of rapid environmental change. We focus on four fundamental aspects of complex insect societies (coordination of cooperative behavior, worker caste organization, social immunity, and ecosystem engineering) and make predictions about how social lifestyles may become compromised in the face of ecological adversity. We intend to bring attention to the unique vulnerabilities of social insects and propose novel avenues of research to better illuminate the consequences of global change for social insects.


Land conversion Invasive species Conservation Anthropocene Chemical communication Task allocation 



The authors thank Kevin Loope, Amanda Hale, Madison Sankovitz, Daniel Pierce, and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. This work was supported in part by University of California Agricultural Experiment Station funds to J. Purcell and S.H. Woodard.


  1. Bagneres AG, Hanus R (2015) Communication and social regulation in termites. In: Aquiloni L, Tricarico E (eds) Social regulation in invertebrates. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 193–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barron AB (2015) Death of the bee hive: understanding the failure of an insect society. Curr Opin Insect Sci 10:45–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beggs JR, Brockerhoff EG, Corley JC, Kenis M, Masciocchi M, Muller F, Rome Q, Villemant C (2011) Ecological effects and management of invasive alien Vespidae. Biocontrol 56:505–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blum MS (1996) Semiochemical parsimony in the Arthropoda. Annu Rev Entomol 41:353–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blum MS, Brand JM (1972) Social insect pheromones: their chemistry and function. Am Zool 12:553–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollazzi M, Kronenbitter J, Roces F (2008) Soil temperature, digging behaviour, and the adaptive value of nest depth in South American species of Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants. Oecologia 158:165–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp JW (2011) Principles of animal communication. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Cao TT, Dornhaus A (2008) Ants under crowded conditions consume more energy. Biol Lett 4:613–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman RE, Bourke A (2001) The influence of sociality on the conservation biology of social insects. Ecol Lett 4:650–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christe P, Oppliger A, Bancala F, Castella G, Chapuisat M (2003) Evidence for collective medication in ants. Ecol Lett 6:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colin T, Doums C, Péronnet R, Molet M (2017) Decreasing worker size diversity does not affect colony performance during laboratory challenges in the ant Temnothorax nylanderi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Couvillon MJ, Robinson EJH, Atkinson B, Child L, Dent KR, Ratnieks FLW (2008) En garde: rapid shifts in honey bee, Apis mellifera, guarding behavior are triggered by onslaught of conspecific intruders. Anim Behav 76:1653–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cremer S, Armitage SAO, Schmid-Hempel P (2007) Social immunity. Curr Biol 17:693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. d’Ettorre P, Lenoir P (2010) Nestmate recognition. In: Lach L (ed) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 194–209Google Scholar
  16. Downs S, Ratnieks F (1999) Adaptive shifts in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) guarding behavior support predictions of the acceptance threshold model. Behav Ecol 11:326–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans JD, Aronstein K, Chen YP, Hetru C, Imler JL, Jiang H, Kanost M, Thompson GJ, Zou Z, Hultmark D (2006) Immune pathways and defence mechanisms in honey bees Apis mellifera. Insect Mol Biol 15:645–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gardner A, West SA (2007) Social evolution: the decline and fall of genetic kin recognition. Curr Biol 17:810–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Honeybee Genome Sequencing Consortium (2006) Insights into social insects from the genome of the honeybee Apis mellifera. Nature 443:931–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang ZY, Robinson GE (1996) Regulation of honey bee division of labor by colony age demography. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang ZY, Robinson GE, Borst DW (1994) Physiological correlates of division of labor among similarly aged honey bees. J Comp Physiol A 174:731–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes J, Broome A (2007) Forests and wood ants in Scotland. Forestry Commission Accessed Jun 2017
  25. Hughes WOH, Eilenberg J, Boomsma JJ (2002) Trade-offs in group living: transmission and disease resistance in leaf-cutting ants. Proc R Soc B 269:1811–1819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jandt JM, Bengston S, Pinter-Wollman N, Pruitt JN, Raine NE, Dornhaus A, Sih A (2014) Behavioural syndromes and social insects: personality at multiple levels. Biol Rev 89:48–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jandt JM, Hunt EM, McGlynn TP (2015) Intraspecific food-robbing and neighborhood competition: consequences for anti-robber vigilance and colony productivity. Biotropica 47:491–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones JC, Oldroyd BP (2006) Nest thermoregulation in social insects. Adv In Insect Phys 33:153–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King JR, Warren RJ, Bradford MA (2013) Social insects dominate the Eastern US temperate hardwood forest macroinvertebrate communities in warmer regions. Plos One 8:e75843. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kleeberg I, Menzel F, Foitzik S (2017) The influence of slavemaking lifestyle, caste and sex on chemical profiles in Temnothorax ants: insights into the evolution of cuticular hydrocarbons. Proc R Soc B 284:20162249. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kudo K, Zucchi R (2008) Nestmate recognition in a Neotropical swarm-founding wasp: no effect of seasonality on tolerance of alien conspecifics. Ethol Ecol Evol 20:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Law JH, Wilson EO, McCloskey JA (1965) Biochemical polymorphism in ants. Science 149:544–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Leighton GM, Charbonneau D, Dornhaus A (2016) Task switching is associated with temporal delays in Temnothorax rugatulus ants. Behav Ecol 28:319–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Leonhardt SD, Schmitt T, Bluthgen N (2011) Tree resin composition, collection behavior and selective filters shape chemical profiles of tropical bees (Apidae: Meliponini). PLOS ONE 6:e23445. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Leonhardt S, Menzel F, Nehring V, Schmitt T (2016) Ecology and evolution of communication in social insects. Cell 164:1277–1287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Leza M, Watrous KM, Bratu J, Woodard SH (2018) Effects of neonicotinoid insecticide exposure and monofloral diet on nest founding bumblebee queens. Proc R Soc B 285:20180761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Liang D, Silverman J (2000) You are what you eat: Diet modifies cuticular hydrocarbons and nestmate recognition in the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. Naturwissenschaften 87:412–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin JM, Carruthers JM, Williams PH, Drijfhout FP (2010) Host specific social parasites (Psithyrus) indicate chemical recognition system in Bumblebees. J Chem Ecol 36:855–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mertl AL, Traniello JF (2009) Behavioral evolution in the major worker subcaste of twig-nesting Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): does morphological specialization influence task plasticity? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1411–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meunier J (2015) Social immunity and the evolution of group living in insects. Philos Trans R Soc B 370: 20140102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Nascimento D, Nascimento F (2012) Acceptance Threshold Hypothesis is supported by chemical similarity of cuticular hydrocarbons in a stingless bee, Melipona asilvai. J Chem Ecol 38:1432–1440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pamminger T, Steier T, Tragust S (2016) High temperature and temperature variation undermine future disease susceptibility in a population of the invasive garden ant, Lasius neglectus. Sci Nat 103:46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pankiw T, Page RE Jr (2000) Response thresholds to sucrose predict foraging division of labor in honeybees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pankiw T, Page RE Jr (2003) Effect of pheromones, hormones, and handling on sucrose response thresholds of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Comp Physiol A 189:675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perry CJ, Søvik E, Myerscough MR, Barron AB (2015) Rapid behavioral maturation accelerates failure of stressed honey bee colonies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:3427–3432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinter-Wollman N (2015) Nest architecture shapes the collective behaviour of harvester ants. Biol Lett 11:20150695. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Purcell J, Avilés L (2007) Smaller colonies and more solitary living mark higher elevation populations of a social spider. J Anim Ecol 76:590–597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Purcell J, Vasconcellos-Neto J, Gonzaga MO, Fletcher JA, Avilés L (2012) Spatio-temporal differentiation and sociality in spiders. Plos One 7:e34592. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Reber A, Purcell J, Buechel SD, Puri P, Chapuisat M (2011) The expression and impact of antifungal grooming in ants. J Evol Biol 24:954–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Reeve HK (1989) The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds. Am Nat 133:407–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Robinson EJH (2009) Physiology as a caste-defining feature. Insectes Soc 56:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robinson GE (1987) Regulation of honey bee age polyethism by juvenile hormone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Ann Rev Entomol 37:637–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schulz DJ, Huang ZY, Robinson GE (1998) Effects of colony food shortage on behavioral development in honey bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sih A, Ferrari MCO, Harris DJ (2011) Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change. Evol Appl 4:367–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Simone-Finstrom M, Borba RS, Wilson M, Spivak M (2017) Propolis Counteracts Some Threats to Honey Bee Health. Insects 8:e46. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Steinmetz I, Schmolz E (2005) Nest odor dynamics in the social wasp Vespula vulgaris. Naturwiss 92:414–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Stuart RJ, Alloway TM (1985) Behavioural evolution and domestic degeneration in obligatory slave-making ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Leptothoracini). Anim Behav 33:1080–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E, Beneubourg J (1998) The origin of nest complexity in social insects. Complexity 3:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tylianakis JM, Diham RK, Bascompte J, Wardle DA (2008) Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:1351–1363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ushitani T, Perry CJ, Cheng K, Barron AB (2016) Accelerated behavioural development changes fine-scale search behaviour and spatial memory in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Exp Biol 219:412–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. van Zweden JS, Brask JB, Christensen JH, Boomsma JJ, Linksvayer TA, d'Ettorre P (2010) Blending of heritable recognition cues among ant nestmates creates distinct colony gestalt odours but prevents within-colony nepotism. J Evol Biol 23:1498–1508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. van Zweden JS, d’Ettorre P (2010) Nestmate recognition in social insects and the role of hydrocarbons. In: Blomquist GJ, Bagnères A-G (eds) Insect hydrocarbons: biology, biochemistry, and chemical ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 222–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wagner D, Tissot M, Gordon D (2001) Task-related environment alters the cuticular hydrocarbon composition of harvester ants. J Chem Ecol 27:1805–1819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Waser NM (1998) Task-matching and short-term size shifts in foragers of the harvester ant, Messor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Insect Behav 11:451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wenzel JW (1998) A generic key to the nests of hornets, yellowjackets, and paper wasps worldwide (Vespidae, Vespinae, Polistinae). Am Museum Novit 3224:39Google Scholar
  69. Wilson MB, Spivak M, Hegeman AD, Rendahl A, Cohe JD (2013) Metabolomics reveals the origins of antimicrobial plant resins collected by honey bees. Plos One 8:e77512. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson EO (1983) Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilson EO (1990) Success and dominance in ecosystems: the case of the social insects. Ecology Institute, OldendorfGoogle Scholar
  73. Wittwer B, Hefetz A, Simon T, Murphy LEK, Elgar MA, Pierce NE, Kocher SD (2017) Solitary bees reduce investment in communication compared with their social relatives. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:6569–6574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of California RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations