Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Division of labor and slave raid initiation in slave-making ants

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In social insect societies, division of labor, i.e., workers of a colony specializing in different tasks, is thought to improve colony performance. Workers of social parasitic slave-making ants focus on a single task, searching for and raiding host colonies to replenish their slave workforce. However, in the North American slavemaker Protomognathus americanus, some workers do not partake in raids but remain inside the colony. We analyzed raid participation, fertility, and cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of slavemaker workers and slaves to understand these behavioral differences and the regulation of division of labor in slavemaker colonies. Raid observations showed that some workers were repeatedly involved in raiding activities (exterior workers), whereas others stayed inside the nest (interior workers). Exterior workers were always infertile, while half of the interior workers were fertile. Analysis of cuticular hydrocarbons demonstrated differences between the groups. We also detected chemical differences between interior and exterior slaves, indicating an influence of the individuals’ tasks on their cuticular profiles. Task- and fertility-related profiles may allow selective nestmate recruiting. Division of labor should also adapt to varying conditions. Since slave raids are dangerous, they should only be initiated when the colony needs additional slaves. Exclusively fed by their slaves, slavemaker workers could determine this need via their nutritional status. In an experiment with various feeding regimes, colonies subjected to a lower food provisioning rate showed increased proportions of slavemaker workers searching for host colonies. Division of labor in slave-making ants, therefore, might be flexible and can change depending on the colonies’ needs.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Batchelor TP, Briffa M (2010) Influences on resource-holding potential during dangerous group contests between wood ants. Anim Behav 80:443–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beibl J, Stuart RJ, Heinze J, Foitzik S (2005) Six origins of slavery in formicoxenine ants. Insect Soc 52:291–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Billen J (1985) Ultrastructure of the worker ovarioles in Formica ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Int J Insect Morphol Embryol 14:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blatrix R, Herbers JM (2004) Intracolonial conflict in the slave-making ant Protomognathus americanus: dominance hierarchies and individual reproductive success. Insect Soc 51:131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg JL (1996) Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labour in insect societies. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1565–1569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke AFG (1988) Dominance orders, worker reproduction, and queen-worker conflict in the slave-making ant Harpagoxenus sublaevis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:323–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke AFG, van der Have TM, Franks NR (1988) Sex ratio determination and worker reproduction in the slave-making ant Harpagoxenus sublaevis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:233–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner E, Trindl A, Falk KH, Heinze J, D'Ettorre P (2005) Reproductive conflict in social insects: male production by workers in a slave-making ant. Evolution 59:2480–2482

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buschinger A, Ehrhardt W, Winter U (1980) The organization of slave raids in dulotic ants—a comparative study (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). Z Tierpsychol 53:245–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartar RV (1992) Adjustment of foraging effort and task switching in energy-manipulated wild bumblebee colonies. Anim Behav 44:75–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detrain C, Pasteels JM (1991) Caste differences in behavioral thresholds as a basis for polyethism during food recruitment in the ant, Pheidole pallidula (Nyl.) (Hymenoptera: Myrmicinae). J Insect Behav 4:157–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornhaus A (2008) Specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant. PLoS Biol 6:2368–2375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira-Caliman MJ, Nascimento FS, Turatti IC, Mateus S, Lopes NP, Zucchi R (2010) The cuticular hydrocarbons profiles in the stingless bee Melipona marginata reflect task-related differences. J Insect Physiol 56:800–804

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foitzik S, Herbers JM (2001) Colony structure of a slavemaking ant. I. Intracolony relatedness, worker reproduction, and polydomy. Evolution 55:307–315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foitzik S, DeHeer CJ, Hunjan DN, Herbers JM (2001) Coevolution in host-parasite systems: behavioural strategies of slave-making ants and their hosts. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1139–1146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Franks NR, Scovell E (1983) Dominance and reproductive success among slave-making worker ants. Nature 304:724–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM (1996) The organization of work in social insect colonies. Nature 380:121–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM (2002) The regulation of foraging activity in red harvester ant colonies. Am Nat 159:509–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene MJ, Gordon DM (2003) Cuticular hydrocarbons inform task decisions. Nature 423:32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:9

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbers JM, Cunningham M (1983) Social organization in Leptothorax longispinosus Mayr. Anim Behav 31:759–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbers JM, Foitzik S (2002) The ecology of slavemaking ants and their hosts in north temperate forests. Ecology 83:148–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard DF, Tschinkel WR (1980) The effect of colony size and starvation on food flow in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:293–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BR (2010) Division of labor in honeybees: form, function, and proximate mechanisms. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:305–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lengyel F, Westerlund SA, Kaib M (2007) Juvenile hormone III influences task-specific cuticular hydrocarbon profile changes in the ant Myrmicaria eumenoides. J Chem Ecol 33:167–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore D, Liebig J (2010) Mixed messages: fertility signaling interferes with nestmate recognition in the monogynous ant Camponotus floridanus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1011–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscedere ML, Willey TA, Traniello JFA (2009) Age and task efficiency in the ant Pheidole dentata: young minor workers are not specialist nurses. Anim Behav 77:911–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Donnell S (1998) Effects of experimental forager removals on division of labour in the primitively eusocial wasp Polistes instabilis (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Behaviour 135:173–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeters C, Monnin T, Malosse C (1999) Cuticular hydrocarbons correlated with reproductive status in a queenless ant. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1323–1327

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl S, Foitzik S (2011) Slave-making ants prefer larger, better defended host colonies. Anim Behav 81:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter SD, Tschinkel WR (1985) Fire ant polymorphism: the ergonomics of brood production. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 37:637–665

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson EJH, Feinerman O, Franks NR (2009) Flexible task allocation and the organization of work in ants. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:4373–4380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwander T, Lo N, Beekman M, Oldroyd BP, Keller L (2010) Nature versus nurture in social insect caste differentiation. Trends Ecol Evol 25:275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith AA, Hölldober B, Liebig J (2009) Cuticular hydrocarbons reliably identify cheaters and allow enforcement of altruism in a social insect. Curr Biol 19:78–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sturtevant AH (1927) The social parasitism of the ant Harpagoxenus americanus. Psyche 34:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner D, Brown MJF, Broun P, Cuevas W, Moses LE, Chao DL, Gordon DM (1998) Task-related differences in the cuticular hydrocarbon composition of harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex barbatus. J Chem Ecol 24:2021–2037

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner D, Tissot M, Gordon D (2001) Task-related environment alters the cuticular hydrocarbon composition of harvester ants. J Chem Ecol 27:1805–1819

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wesson LG Jr (1939) Contributions to the natural history of Harpagoxenus americanus Emery (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Trans Am Entomol Soc 65:97–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiernasz DC, Cole BJ (2010) Patriline shifting leads to apparent genetic caste determination in harvester ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:12958–12962

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1985) The sociogenesis of insect colonies. Science 228:1489–1495

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1987) Causes of ecological success: the case of the ants. J Anim Ecol 56:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Sofia Lizon à l’Allemand, Christoph von Beeren, and two other field assistants for their help during ant collection and Andrea Hintermair for her help during the raiding experiments. This work was supported by the Edmund Niles Huyck Preserve, Rensselaerville, New York, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Fo 298/8).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Biologie II, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Großhaderner Str. 2, 82152, Planegg-Martinsried, Germany

    Sebastian Pohl, Volker Witte & Susanne Foitzik

  2. Institut für Zoologie, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Susanne Foitzik

Authors
  1. Sebastian Pohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Volker Witte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne Foitzik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Pohl.

Additional information

Communicated by J. Traniello

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pohl, S., Witte, V. & Foitzik, S. Division of labor and slave raid initiation in slave-making ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65, 2029–2036 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1212-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1212-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation