Task specialization influences nestmate recognition ability in ants
- 555 Downloads
Insect societies are a paramount example of efficiency based upon division of labour. Social insect workers specialize on different tasks, such as brood care and foraging. This polyethism is underlined by the development of brain and olfactory organs. Nestmate recognition in ants is based on perception of chemical cues through olfaction; therefore, we asked whether task polyethism affects the ability of ants to discriminate friends from foes. We used the carpenter ant Camponotus aethiops to investigate the ability of three behavioural groups of worker (foragers, nurses and inactives) in recognizing intruders. Foragers, which are older workers mainly performing tasks outside the nest, showed higher levels of aggression towards intruders than nurses did. Foragers appeared to be more efficient at recognizing non-nestmate cues than did intra-nidal workers (nurses and inactives), and they possibly have higher motivation to attack. This suggests that ant workers change their olfactory sensitivity to non-nestmate stimuli during their life. This plasticity could be adaptive, as younger workers, who typically stay inside the nest, usually do not encounter intruders, while older workers have more experience outside the nest and differently developed neural circuits. A sensitive nestmate recognition system would thus be an unnecessary cost early in life.
Ants are known to divide their workforce, often as a product of age. Younger workers take on safer tasks such as taking care of the brood, while older workers are often involved with more dangerous tasks such as foraging and defending the nest. Here, we show that workers change their olfactory sensitivity to intruders during their life. As a result, foragers are better than nurses at detecting intruders. Furthermore, foragers appeared to not only be more sensitive but also have higher motivation to attack. The higher sensitivity of foragers is most likely adaptive, as younger workers stay in the nest and typically do not encounter intruders, and a sensitive recognition system would be for them an unnecessary cost.
KeywordsPolyethism Olfactory sensitivity Nestmate recognition
Thanks to the members of the Centre for Social Evolution (CSE), University of Copenhagen for the pleasant working environment, in particular David Nash for providing useful comments. This study was supported by The Danish National Research Foundation (CSE), a Freia grant from the Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen and a Marie Curie Reintegration Grant, both assigned to PdE, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), supporting VN. NB was supported by the Academy of Finland (decision numbers: 251337, 252411 and 289731) and the University of Helsinki.
- Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM (2011) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classesGoogle Scholar
- Charbonneau D, Hillis N, Dornhaus a. (2014) “Lazy” in nature: ant colony time budgets show high “inactivity” in the field as well as in the lab. Insectes Soc. doi: 10.1007/s00040-014-0370-6
- Chittka L, Muller H (2009) Learning, specialization, efficiency and task allocation in social insects. Commun Integr Biol 2:151–154Google Scholar
- d’Ettorre P, Lenoir A (2010) Nestmate recognition. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbot K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Eggleton P (2011) An introduction to termites: biology, taxonomy and functional morphology. In: Bignell DE, Roisin Y, Lo N (eds) Biology of Termites: A Modern Synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–2Google Scholar
- Farris SM, Robinson GE, Fahrbach SE (2001) Experience- and age-related outgrowth of intrinsic neurons in the mushroom bodies of the adult worker honeybee. J Neurosci 21:6395–6404Google Scholar
- Gordon DM (2010) Ant encounters: interaction networks and colony behaviour. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
- Oster GF, Wilson E (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing., ISBN 3–9000051–07–0Google Scholar
- Rosengren R (1977) Foraging strategy of wood ants (Formica rufa group). I. Age polyethism and topographic traditions. Acta Zool Fenn 149:1–29Google Scholar
- Santos JC, Yamamoto M, Oliveira F, Del-Claro K (2005) Behavioral repertory of the weaver ant Camponotus (Myrmobrachys) senex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 46:27–37Google Scholar
- Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1997) Recognition systems. In: KJ R, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, 4th edn. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 69–96Google Scholar
- Starks PT (2004) Recognition systems: from components to conservation. Ann Zool Fennici 41:689–690Google Scholar
- Sturgis SJ, Gordon DM (2012) Nestmate recognition in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a review. Myrmecological News 16:101–110Google Scholar
- Tofilski A (2002) Influence of age polyethism on longevity of workers in social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:234–237. doi: 10.1007/s00265-001-0429-z
- Zhou S, Stone EA, Mackay TFC, Anholt RRH (2009) Plasticity of the chemoreceptor repertoire in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000681