Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Colony size affects division of labour in the ponerine ant Rhytidoponera metallica

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Naturwissenschaften Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In theory, larger colonies of social insects should have greater colony organisation. While inter-specific comparative studies provide support for this idea, there is little direct intra-specific evidence. We investigated differences in task specialisation between large (>450 workers) and small (<80 workers) colonies of the ponerine ant Rhytidoponera metallica. Observations of individually marked young or old workers revealed greater task specialisation in large colonies. Age polyethism was detected in large but not small colonies. In large colonies, old workers spent significantly more time foraging than young workers did, while young workers spent more time caring for brood. In small colonies, young and old workers spent a similar amount of time foraging and caring for brood. This difference in task allocation patterns in large and small colonies was associated with a difference in contact rates between workers. Workers in small colonies have a lower contact rate between nestmates and a greater variability in time between contacts than workers from large colonies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

References

  • Anderson C, McShea DW (2001) Individual versus social complexity, with particular reference to ant colonies. Biol Rev 76:211–237

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson C, Ratnieks FLW (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies. I. Effect of colony size on queueing delay and colony ergonomic efficiency. Am Nat 154:521–535

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonavita-Cougourdan A, Clément JL, Lange C (1993) Functional subcaste discrimination (foragers and brood-tenders) in the ant Camponotus vagus Scop.: polymorphism of cuticular hydrocarbon patterns. J Chem Ecol 7:1461–1477

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourke AFG (1999) Colony size, social complexity and reproductive conflict in social insects. J Evol Biol 12:245–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke AFG, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  • Calabi P, Rosengaus R (1988) Interindividual differences based on behaviour transition probabilities in the ant Camponotus sericeiventris. In: Jeanne RL (ed) Interindividual behavioural variability in social insects. Westview, Boulder, Colo.

  • Corbara B, Lachaud J-P, Fresneau D (1989) Individual variability, social structure and division of labour in the ponerine ant Ectatomma ruidum Roger (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ethology 82:89–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Dejean A, J-P Lachaud (1991) Polyethism in the ponerine ant Odontomachus troglodytes: interaction of age and interindividual variability. Sociobiology 18:177–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Franks NR, Tofts C (1994) Foraging for work: how tasks allocate workers. Anim Behav 48:470–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautrais J, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg J-L, Anderson C (2002) Emergent polyethism as a consequence of increased colony size in insect societies. J Theor Biol 215:363–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM, Kulig AW (1996) Founding, foraging, and fighting: colony size and the spatial distribution of harvester ant nests. Ecology 77:2393–2409

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM, Mehdiabadi NJ (1999) Encounter rate and task allocation in harvester ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:370–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM, Goodwin BC, Trainor LEH (1992) A parallel distributed model of the behaviour of ant colonies. J Theor Biol 156: 293–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM, Paul RE, Thorpe K (1993) What is the function of encounter patterns in ant colonies? Anim Behav 45: 1083–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskins PC, Haskins EF (1979) Worker compatibilities within and between populations of Rhytidoponera metallica. Psyche 86:299–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang SY, Robinson GE (1992) Honeybee colony integration: worker–worker interactions mediate hormonally regulated plasticity in division of labor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:11726–11729

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaisson R, Fresneau D, Lachaud J-P (1988) Individual traits of social behaviour in ants. In: Jeanne RL (ed) Interindividual behavioural variability in social insects. Westview, Boulder, Colo., pp 1–51

  • Jeanne RL (1986) The organization of work in Polybia occidentalis: costs and benefits of specialisation in a social wasp. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:333–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeanne RL (1987) Do water foragers pace nest construction activity in Polybia occidentalis? In: Detrain C, Pasteels JM, Deneubourg JL (eds) From individual to collective behaviour in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel

  • Jeanne RL (1991) The swarm-founding Polistinae. In: Ross KG, Matthes RW (eds) The social biology of wasps, pp 191–231. Comstock, Ithaca, N.Y.

  • Jeanne RL (1999) Group size, productivity, and information flow in social wasps. In: Detrain CD, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (eds) Information processing in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 3–30

  • Karsai I, Wenzel JW (1998) Productivity, individual-level and colony-level flexibility, and organization of work as consequences of colony size. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:8665–8669

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaspari M, Vargo EL (1995) Colony size as a buffer against seasonality: Bergmann's rule in social insects. Am Nat 145:610–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir A (1987) Factors determining polyethism in social insects. Experientia 54:219–241

    Google Scholar 

  • McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) PC-ORD: multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 4.10. MjM Software, Glenedon Beach, Ore.

  • Nonacs P, Dill LM (1990) Mortality risk versus food quality trade-offs in a common currency: ant patch preferences. Ecology 71:886–892

    Google Scholar 

  • Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

  • Pacala SW, Gordon DM, Godfray HCJ (1996) Effects of social group size on information transfer and task allocation. Evol Ecol 10:127–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeters C (1997) Morphologically 'primitive' ants: comparative review of social characters, and the importance of queen-worker dimorphism. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of social behaviour in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 372–391

  • Pereira HM, Gordon DM (2001) A trade-off in task allocation between sensitivity to the environment and response time. J Theor Biol 208:165–184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pielou EC (1969) An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley, New York

  • Ratnieks FLW, Anderson C (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies. Insectes Soc 46:95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 37:637–702

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GE, Page RE, Huang Z-Y (1994) Temporal polyethism in social insects is a developmental process. Anim Behav 48:467–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid-Hempel P, Winston ML, Ydenberg RC (1993) Foraging of individual workers in relation to colony state in social Hymenoptera. Can Entomol 125:129–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeley TD (1989) Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colony's nutritional status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:181–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Sendova-Franks A, Franks NR (1993) Task allocation in ant colonies within variable environments. (A study of temporal polyethism: experimental). Bull Math Biol 55:75–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Sendova-Franks A, Franks NR (1994) Social resilience in individual worker ants and its role in division of labour. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 256:305–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill.

  • Thomas ML (2002) Causes and consequences of colony size in the ponerine ant Rhytidoponera metallica. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia

  • Tofts C (1993) Algorithms for task allocation in ants. (A study of temporal polyethism: theory). Bull Math Biol 55:891–918

    Google Scholar 

  • Tofts C, Franks NR (1992) Doing the right thing: ants, honeybees and naked mole-rats. Trends Ecol Evol 7:346–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Traniello JFA (1978) Caste in a primitive ant: absence of age polyethism in Amblyopone. Science 202:770–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschinkel WR (1988) Colony growth and the ontogeny of worker polymorphism in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:103–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward PS (1986) Functional queens in the Australian greenhead ant, Rhytidoponera metallica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 93:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel JW, Pickering J (1991) Cooperative foraging, productivity, and the central limit theorem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:36–38

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson L (1997) SYSTAT 7.0.1 for Windows. SPSS, Chicago

  • Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  • Wilson EO (1976) Behavioral discretization and the number of castes in an ant species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:141–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1985) The principles of caste evolution. In: Hölldobler B, Lindauer M (eds) Experimental behavioral ecology and sociobiology. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, pp 307–324

  • Wilson EO (1990) Success and dominance in ecosystems: the case of the social insects. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sharada Ramamurthy, Fleur DeCrespigny, Valerie and Shamba for help in collecting colonies. Special thanks to Dr. Alain Lenoir and Mr. S. Barreau from the Université François Rabelais for providing tags for marking ants. Mick Keough and Volker Framenau helped with statistical analyses. Volker Framenau provided helpful comments on the manuscript. This research was funded by MRS (The University of Melbourne Research Scholarship).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Melissa L. Thomas

    Present address: Division of Biology, University of California, San Diego, 4258 Muir Biology, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0116, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, 3010, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    Melissa L. Thomas & Mark A. Elgar

Authors
  1. Melissa L. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark A. Elgar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa L. Thomas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thomas, M.L., Elgar, M.A. Colony size affects division of labour in the ponerine ant Rhytidoponera metallica . Naturwissenschaften 90, 88–92 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-002-0396-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-002-0396-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation