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.
References
Alcock J, Sherman P (1994) The utility of the proximate-ultimate dichotomy in ethology. Ethology 96:58–62
Anderson C, Boomsma JJ, Bartholdi JJ (2002) Task partitioning in insect societies: bucket brigades. Insect Soc 49:171–180
Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440
Dornhaus A (2008) Specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant. PLoS Biol 6:2368–2375
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
Gordon D (2016) From division of labor to the collective behavior of social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-2045-3
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
Hubbell SP, Johnson LK, Stanislav E, Wilson B, Fowler H (1980) Foraging by bucket-brigade in leaf-cutter ants. Biotropica 12:210–213
Jeanne RL (1986a) The evolution of the organization of work in social insects. Monit Zool Ital NS 20:119–133
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
Jeanson R, Weidenmüller A (2014) Interindividual variability in social insects—proximate causes and ultimate consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 89:671–687
Kay A, Rissing SW (2005) Division of foraging labor in ants can mediate demands for food and safety. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:165–174
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
Loope KJ, Jeanne RL (2008) A test of adaptive hypotheses for rapid nest construction in a swarm-founding wasp. Insect Soc 55:274–282
Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 134:1501–1506
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
Michener CD (1974) The social behavior of the bees. A comparative study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Porter SD, Tschinkel WR (1985) Fire ant polymorphism—the ergonomics of brood production. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:323–336
Ratnieks FLW, Anderson C (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies. Insect Soc 46:95–108
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
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
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
Tinbergen N (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Z Tierpsychol 20:410–433
Tofilski A (2002) Influence of age polyethism on longevity of workers in social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:234–237
Tofilski A (2006) Influence of caste polyethism on longevity social insect colonies. J Theor Biol 238:527–531
Tschinkel WR (2006) The fire ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
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
Acknowledgments
I thank James Traniello and two anonymous reviewers for their help in improving the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2146-7