Skip to main content
Log in

Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Deborah Gordon (Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-2045-3, 2016) advocates abandoning the term “division of labor” (DOL) on the grounds that it implies a process by which individual colony members become persistent specialists by virtue of their “essential internal attributes.” She claims that there is little evidence for such links, and that continued use of the term distracts us from focusing on how distributed processing leads to task allocation (TA) in the colony, which she considers to be sufficient explanation of how colonies organize work. I argue instead that the term DOL as understood by most social insect researchers today is descriptive, useful, and carries no such implications of process or links to internal attributes. I suggest that the confusion can be addressed by recognizing the distinction between the ontogenetic causes of DOL, which set individuals’ response thresholds (RT) during their development, and the behavioral and physiological mechanisms that act in the moment to determine TA via distributed processing. I further suggest that the term “specialization” as applied to social insects should be understood to mean simply “to concentrate on,” without requiring that it be accompanied by increased performance efficiency.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Alcock J, Sherman P (1994) The utility of the proximate-ultimate dichotomy in ethology. Ethology 96:58–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson C, Boomsma JJ, Bartholdi JJ (2002) Task partitioning in insect societies: bucket brigades. Insect Soc 49:171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fewell JH, Schmidt SK, Taylor T (2009) Division of labor in the context of complexity. In: Gadau J, Fewell JH (eds) Organization of insect societies: from genome to sociocomplexity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 483–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon D (2016) From division of labor to the collective behavior of social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-2045-3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook CT, Barden PM, Fewell JH (2011) Division of labor increases with colony size in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Behav Ecol 22:960–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbell SP, Johnson LK, Stanislav E, Wilson B, Fowler H (1980) Foraging by bucket-brigade in leaf-cutter ants. Biotropica 12:210–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanne RL (1986a) The evolution of the organization of work in social insects. Monit Zool Ital NS 20:119–133

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanson R, Weidenmüller A (2014) Interindividual variability in social insects—proximate causes and ultimate consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 89:671–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kay A, Rissing SW (2005) Division of foraging labor in ants can mediate demands for food and safety. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:165–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London KB, Jeanne RL (2003) Effects of colony size and stage of development on defense response by the swarm-founding wasp Polybia occidentalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:539–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loope KJ, Jeanne RL (2008) A test of adaptive hypotheses for rapid nest construction in a swarm-founding wasp. Insect Soc 55:274–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 134:1501–1506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mertl AL, Traniello JFA (2009) Behavioral evolution in the major worker subcaste of twig-nesting Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): does morphological specialization influence task plasticity? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1411–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michener CD (1974) The social behavior of the bees. A comparative study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GE (1987) Modulation of alarm pheromone perception in the honey-bee—evidence for division-of-labor based on hormonally regulated response thresholds. J Comp Physiol A 160:613–619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GE, Page RE (1989) Genetic basis for division of labor in an insect society. In: Breed MD, Page RE (eds) The genetics of social evolution. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 61–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E, Deneubourg J-L (1998) Response threshold reinforcement and division of labour in insect societies. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 265:327–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen N (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Z Tierpsychol 20:410–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tofilski A (2002) Influence of age polyethism on longevity of workers in social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:234–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tofilski A (2006) Influence of caste polyethism on longevity social insect colonies. J Theor Biol 238:527–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tschinkel WR (2006) The fire ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1980) Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Atta). 2. The ergonomic optimization of leaf cutting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:157–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank James Traniello and two anonymous reviewers for their help in improving the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert L. Jeanne.

Additional information

Communicated by O. Rueppell

This manuscript is a contribution to the special issue Integrative Analysis of Division of Labor—Guest Editors: Simon K. Robson, James F.A. Traniello

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeanne, R.L. Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70, 1109–1112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2146-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2146-7

Keywords

Navigation