Advertisement

Multi-year genetic sampling indicates maternal gene flow via colony emigrations in the army ant Eciton burchellii parvispinum

  • T. W. Soare
  • A. Kumar
  • K. A. Naish
  • S. O’DonnellEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Sex-biased dispersal occurs when one sex disperses more frequently or farther than the opposite sex. In ants, dispersal is often male biased and males typically contribute more strongly to gene flow within and among ant populations. However, army ants may offer an exceptional case of female-biased dispersal, because army ant colonies (particularly species in the Neotropical genus Eciton) routinely emigrate among nest sites. We hypothesized that maternal mobility via successive colony emigrations would reduce the relative male bias in dispersal, and that emigrations would contribute to gene flow within an Eciton population. We genotyped workers (highly variable DNA microsatellite loci) from Eciton burchellii parvispinum colonies collected over a 10 × 10 km area in Monteverde, Costa Rica. Samples were spaced approximately 3 years apart (in 2006 and 2009), the typical time between colony reproductive bouts. We used worker genotypes to reconstruct the genotypes of their mother queens and of a subset of the males that sired the workers. We then analyzed the population genetic structure of the queen and male genotypes by comparing individual-based relatedness estimates for each sex across geographic distance and over time. There was no significant difference in spatial genetic structure between the sexes, either within or between the 2006 and 2009 samples. There was some evidence against genetic philopatry: 2009 queens were significantly unrelated to 2006 queens collected nearby (within 0.5 km). The patterns suggest maternal dispersal via emigrations contributes to gene flow, reducing or eliminating male biases in dispersal. From two populations, we estimated average queen dispersal distance to be 0.63–1.04 km, a greater distance than many winged ant queens disperse. Because emigrations over the lifetime of army ant queens may contribute to gene flow across the landscape, habitat connectivity should be maintained to permit colony emigrations and support genetic diversity in populations of this keystone species.

Keywords

Habitat fragmentation Isolation by distance Multi-year sampling Restricted dispersal Spatial genetic structure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Yamile Molina, Sebastián Jurado, and Sean Tully assisted with field collections. Cara Allen and Anna Pollock assisted with sample preparation and DNA fragment amplification. We thank Jim Wolfe, the Stuckey family, the Rockwell family, the Vitosi family, the Salazar family, the Monteverde Conservation League, the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, the Monteverde Butterfly Garden, Ecolodge San Luis and the University of Georgia for allowing us to work on their lands. Residents of Monteverde, especially the Joyce-van Dusen family and the Monteverde Institute provided logistical support. We thank Bruce Godfrey and members of the Naish lab for genetic troubleshooting, especially Todd Seamons for help with allele scoring. Field research was conducted under permits from the Costa Rican government (MINAE scientific passports #0387 and #04303), and in accordance with the laws of Costa Rica. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant numbers IBN 0347315, IOS 1209072, IOS 0923680, and a Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplement to S.O’D.); the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund; a grant from the Organization for Tropical Studies to A.K.; and the University of Washington Department of Psychology Earl ‘Buz’ Hunt Fellowship to T.W.S.

Supplementary material

40_2019_739_MOESM1_ESM.docx (209 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 209 kb)

References

  1. Balkenhol N, Pardini R, Cornelius C, Fernandes F, Sommer S (2013) Landscape-level comparison of genetic diversity and differentiation in a small mammal inhabiting different fragmented landscapes of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conserv Genet 14:355–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks SC, Peakall R (2012) Genetic spatial autocorrelation can readily detect sex-biased dispersal. Mol Ecol 21:2092–2105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barth MB, Moritz RFA, Pirk CWW, Kraus FB (2013) Male-biased dispersal promotes large scale gene flow in a subterranean army ant, Dorylus (Typhlopone) fulvus. Popul Ecol 55:523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartholomew GA, Lighton JR, Feener DH Jr (1988) Energetics of trail running, load carriage, and emigration in the column-raiding army ant Eciton hamatum. Physiol Zool 61:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berghoff SM, Kronauer DJC, Edwards KJ, Franks NR (2008) Dispersal and population structure of a New World predator, the army ant Eciton burchellii. J Evol Biol 21:1125–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady SG, Fisher BL, Schultz TR, Ward PS (2014) The rise of army ants and their relatives: diversification of specialized predatory Dorylinae ants. BMC Evol Biol 14:93PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruna EM, Izzo TJ, Inouye BD, Uriarte M, Vasconcelos HL (2011) Asymmetric dispersal and colonization success of Amazonian plant-ants queens. PLoS One 6:e22937PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawford NG (2010) SMOGD: software for the measurement of genetic diversity. Mol Ecol Resour 10:556–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronin AL, Molet M, Doums C, Monnin T, Peeters C (2013) Recurrent evolution of dependent colony foundation across eusocial insects. Annu Rev Entomol 58:37–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denny AJ, Franks NR, Edwards KJ (2004) Eight highly polymorphic microsatellite markers for the army ant Eciton burchellii. Mol Ecol Notes 4:234–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeWoody J, Nason JD, Hipkins VD (2006) Mitigating scoring errors in microsatellite data from wild populations. Mol Ecol Notes 6:951–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doums C, Cabrera H, Peeters C (2002) Population genetic structure and male-biased dispersal in the queenless ant Diacamma cyaneiventre. Mol Ecol 11:2251–2264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franks NR (1980) The evolutionary ecology of the army ant, Eciton burchelli on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leeds (England)Google Scholar
  15. Franks NR (1982) A new method for censusing animal populations—the number of Eciton burchelli army ant colonies on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Oecologia 52:266–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franks NR (1985) Reproduction, foraging efficiency and worker polymorphism in army ants. In: Hölldobler B, Lindauer M (eds) Experimental behavioral ecology and sociobiology. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland, pp 91–107Google Scholar
  17. Franks NR, Fletcher CR (1983) Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and migration: Eciton burchelli on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gotwald WH (1995) Army ants: the biology of social predation. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  19. Goudet J (2002) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version 2.9.3.2). Available from http://www2.unil.ch/popgen/softwares/fstat.htm
  20. Goudet J (2005) Hierfstat, a package for R to compute and test hierarchical F-statistics. Mol Ecol Notes 5:184–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guichoux E, Lagache L, Wagner S, Chaumeil P, Leger P, Lepais O, Lepoittevin C, Malausa T, Revardel E, Salin F et al (2011) Current trends in microsatellite genotyping. Mol Ecol Resour 11:591–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGEDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes 2:618–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hardy OJ, Maggia L, Bandou E, Breyne P, Caron H, Chevallier M-H, Doligez A, Dutech C, Kremer A, Latouche-Hallé C, Troispoux V, Veron V, Degen B (2006) Fine-scale genetic structure and gene dispersal inferences in 10 Neotropical tree species. Mol Ecol 15:559–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardy OJ, Pearcy M, Aron S (2008) Small-scale spatial genetic structure in an ant species with sex-biased dispersal. Biol J Linn Soc 93:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartl DL, Clark AG (1997) Principles of population genetics. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Hedrick PW (2005) A standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 59:1633–1638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ingram KK, Pilko A, Heer J, Gordon DM (2013) Colony life history and lifetime reproductive success of red harvester ant colonies. J Anim Ecol 82:540–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaffé R, Moritz RFA, Kraus FB (2009) Gene flow is maintained by polyandry and male dispersal in the army ant Eciton burchellii. Popul Ecol 51:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones OR, Wang J (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:551–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones AG, Small CM, Paczolt KA, Ratterman NL (2010) A practical guide to methods of parentage analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 10:6–30PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Jost L (2008) G(ST) and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17:4015–4026PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Jowers MJ, Leniaud L, Cerdá X, Alasaad S, Caut S, Amor F, Aron S, Boulay RR (2014) Social and population structure in the ant Cataglyphis emmae. PLoS One 8:e72941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kronauer DJC (2009) Recent advances in army ant biology (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 12:51–65Google Scholar
  34. Kronauer DJC, Boomsma JJ (2007) Do army ant queens re-mate later in life? Insect Soc 54:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kronauer DJC, Berghoff SM, Powell S, Denny AJ, Edwards KJ, Franks NR, Boomsma JJ (2006) A reassessment of the mating system characteristics of the army ant Eciton burchellii. Naturwissenschaften 93:402–406PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Kronauer DJC, Ponce ERR, Lattke JE, Boomsma JJ (2007) Six weeks in the life of a reproducing army ant colony: male parentage and colony behaviour. Insect Soc 54:118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kronauer DJC, Schoning C, d’Ettorre P, Boomsma JJ (2010) Colony fusion and worker reproduction after queen loss in army ants. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:755–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kumar A, O’Donnell S (2009) Elevation and forest clearing effects on foraging differ between surface- and subterranean-foraging army ants (Formicidae: Ecitoninae). J Anim Ecol 78:91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levy E, Tomkins JL, Lebas NR, Kennington WJ (2013) Contrasting effects of landscape features on genetic structure in different geographic regions in the ornate dragon lizard, Ctenophorus ornatus. Mol Ecol 22:3904–3915PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Lincoln FC (1930) Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of banding returns. United States Department of Agriculture Circular, vol 118Google Scholar
  41. Loiselle BA, Sork VL, Nason J, Graham C (1995) Spatial genetic structure of a tropical understory shrub, Psychotria officinalis (Rubiaceae). Am J Bot 82:1420–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Malé PG, Leroy C, Humblot P, Dejean A, Quilichini A, Orivel J (2016) Limited gene dispersal and spatial genetic structure as stabilizing factors in an ant-plant mutualism. J Evol Biol 29:2519–2529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markin GP, Collins HL, Dillier JH (1972) Colony founding by queens of the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Ann Entomol Soc Am 65:1053–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meisel JE (2006) Thermal ecology of the neotropical army ant Eciton burchellii. Ecol Appl 16:913–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nielsen R, Tarpy DR, Reeve HK (2003) Estimating effective paternity number in social insects and the effective number of alleles in a population. Mol Ecol 12:3157–3164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Donnell S, Lattke J, Powell S, Kaspari M (2009) Species and site differences in Neotropical army ant emigration behavior. Ecol Entomol 34:476–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O’Donnell S, Kaspari M, Kumar A, Lattke J, Powell S (2011) Elevational and geographic variation in army ant swarm raid rates. Insectes Soc 58:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peeters C, Ito F (2001) Colony dispersal and the evolution of queen morphology in social Hymenoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 46:601–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pérez-Espona S, Pérez-Barbería FJ, Jiggins CD, Gordon IJ, Pemberton JM (2010) Variable extent of sex-biased dispersal in a strongly polygynous mammal. Mol Ecol 19:3101–3113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pérez-Espona S, McLeod JE, Franks NR (2012a) Landscape genetics of a top neotropical predator. Mol Ecol 21:5969–5985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pérez-Espona S, McLeod JE, Franks NR (2012b) Data from: landscape genetics of a top neotropical predator. Dryad Digital Repos.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k2qc1
  52. Ponnikas S, Kvist L, Ollila T, Stjernberg T, Orell M (2013) Genetic structure of an endangered raptor at individual and population levels. Conserv Genet 14:1135–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prugnolle F, de Meeus T (2002) Inferring sex-biased dispersal from population genetic tools: a review. Heredity 88:161–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/
  55. Rettenmeyer CW, Rettenmeyer ME, Joseph J, Berghoff SM (2011) The largest animal association centered on one species: the army ant Eciton burchellii and its more than 300 associates. Insect Soc 58:281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schneirla TC (1971) Army ants. In: Topoff HR (ed) A study in social organization. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, pp xx+349Google Scholar
  57. Seppä P, Gyllenstrand N, Corander J, Pamilo P (2004) Coexistence of the social types: genetic population structure in the ant Formica exsecta. Evolution 58:2462–2471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Soare TW, Tully SI, Willson SK, Kronauer DJC, O’Donnell S (2011) Choice of nest site protects army ant colonies from environmental extremes in tropical montane forest. Insect Soc 58:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soare TW, Kumar A, Naish KA, O’Donnell S (2013) Data from: Genetic evidence for landscape effects on dispersal in the army ant Eciton burchellii. Dryad Digital Repos.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j33k3
  60. Soare TW, Kumar A, Naish KA, O’Donnell S (2014) Genetic evidence for landscape effects on dispersal in the army ant Eciton burchellii. Mol Ecol 23:96–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soare TW, Kumar A, Naish KA, O'Donnell S (2019) Data from: Multi-year genetic sampling indicates maternal gene flow via colony emigrations in the army ant Eciton burchellii parvispinum. Dryad.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.0cfxpnvxn CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP (2010) Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 19:3496–3514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sundström L, Seppä P, Pamilo P (2005) Genetic population structure and dispersal patterns in Formica ants—a review. Ann Zool Fennici 42:163–177Google Scholar
  64. Suni SS, Gordon DM (2010) Fine-scale genetic structure and dispersal distance in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex barbatus. Heredity 104:168–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Swartz MB (1997) Behavioral and population ecology of the army ant Eciton burchelli and ant-following birds. Dissertation, University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  66. van Dijk RE, Covas R, Doutrelant C, Spottiswoode CN, Hatchwell BJ (2015) Fine-scale genetic structure reflects sex-specific dispersal strategies in a population of sociable weavers (Philetairus socius). Mol Ecol 24:4296–4311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vekemans X, Hardy OJ (2004) New insights from fine-scale spatial genetic structure analyses in plant populations. Mol Ecol 13:921–935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vidal-Riggs JM, Chaves-Campos J (2008) Method review: estimation of colony densities of the army ant Eciton burchellii in Costa Rica. Biotropica 40:259–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vitikainen EIK, Haag-Liautard C, Sundström L (2015) Natal dispersal, mating patterns, and inbreeding in the ant Formica exsecta. Am Nat 186:716–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vogt JT, Appel AG, West MS (2000) Flight energetics and dispersal capability of the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren. J Insect Physiol 46:697–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang IJ (2011) Choosing appropriate genetic markers and analytical methods for testing landscape genetic hypotheses. Mol Ecol 20:2480–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Watts PC, Rousset F, Saccheri IJ, Leblois R, Kemp SJ, Thompson DJ (2007) Compatible genetic and ecological estimates of dispersal rates in insect (Coenagrion mercuriale: Odonata: Zygoptera) populations: analysis of ‘neighbourhood size’ using a more precise estimator. Mol Ecol 16:737–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Willis EO (1967) The behavior of bicolored antbirds. Univ Calif Publ Zool 79:1–127Google Scholar
  74. Willson SK, Sharp R, Ramler IP, Sen A (2011) Spatial movement optimization in Amazonian Eciton burchellii army ants. Insect Soc 58:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Winston ME, Kronauer DJ, Moreau CS (2017) Early and dynamic colonization of Central America drives speciation in neotropical army ants. Mol Ecol 26:859–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114–138PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NewburyportUSA
  2. 2.Institute of International EducationWashington, DCUSA
  3. 3.School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biodiversity Earth and Environmental ScienceDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations