Journal of Ethology

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 61–69 | Cite as

The mechanism underlying the regulation of work-related behaviors in the monomorphic ant, Myrmica kotokui

Article

Abstract

The mechanism underlying the regulation of the work performed by the members of a colony is a crucial factor in the colonial life of eusocial organisms. If the response thresholds of the workers vary, greater-than-chance variation in the prevalence of work-related behaviors (i.e., in the “working degree”) is expected, and the distribution of these behaviors should be reestablished after demographic changes. We show that greater-than-chance variation in the working degree is restored after a demographic change in the ant Myrmica kotokui. The working degree varied markedly among workers, and the degree of variation could not be explained by chance alone. Moreover, the degree of variation could not be attributed to intrinsic factors such as reproductive potential or age. After a demographic change, some previously inactive workers started to work, whereas some previously active workers became inactive. These shifts resulted in the restoration of a substantial amount of variation in the working degree. These observations all support the hypothesis that variance in the response threshold is the basis of the regulation of work-related behaviors in this ant.

Keywords

Regulation of work Social insect Response threshold model Myrmica kotokui Ant 

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchard GB, Orledge GM, Reynolds SE, Franks NR (2000) Division of labour and seasonality in the ant Leptotholax albipennis: worker corpulence and its influence on behavior. Anim Behav 59:723–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 263:1565–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Dornhas A (2008) Specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant. PLoS Biol 6:1–8Google Scholar
  6. Fewell JH, Bertram SM (1999) Division of labor in a dynamic environment: response by honeybee (Apis mellifera) to graded changes in colony pollen stores. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franks NR, Tofts C (1994) Foraging for work: how tasks allocate workers. Anim Behav 48:470–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hasegawa E (1993) Caste specialization in food strage in the dimorphic ant Colobopsisi nipponicus (Wheeler). Ins Soc 40:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herbers JM, Cunningum M (1983) Social organization in Leptothorax longispinosus Mayr. Anim Behav 31:759–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones JC, Myerscough MR, Graham S, Oldroyd BP (2004) Honey bee nest thermoregulation: diversity promotes stability. Science 305:402–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kikuchi T, Higashi S, Murakami T (1999) A morphological comparison of alates between monogynous and polygynous colonies Myrmica kotokui in northernmost Japan. Ins Soc 46:250–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Korb J, Heinze J (2004) Multilevel selection and social evolution of insect societies. Naturwissenshaften 91:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDnald P, Topoff H (1985) Social regulation of behavioral development in the ant, Novomessor albisetosus (Mayr). J Comp Psychol 99:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meudec M, Lenoir A (1982) Social responses to variation in food supply and nest suitability in ants (Tapinoma erraticum). Anim Behav 30:384–292Google Scholar
  16. Nakata K (1995) Age polyethism, idiosyncrasy and behavioral flexibility in the queenless ponerine ant, Diacamma sp. J Ethol 13:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology of social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  18. Page RE, Erber J, Fondrk MK (1998) The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Comp Phsiol 182:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pankiw T, Page RE (2000) Response thresholds to sucrose predict foraging division of labor in honeybees. Behave Ecol Sociobiol 47:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ravary F, Lecoutey E, Kaminski G, Châline N, Jaisson P (2007) Individual experience alone can generate lasting division of labor in ants. Curr Biol 17:1308–1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division of labour in insect sociaeties. Ann Rev Entomol 37:637–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robinson GE, Page RE (1995) Genotypic constraints on plasticity for corpse removal in honey bee colonies. Anim Behav 49:867–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robinson EJH, Feinerman O, Franks NR (2009) Flexible task allocation and the organization of work in ants. Proc R Soc B 276:4373–4380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sasaki T, Tsuji K (2003) Behavioral property of unusual large workers in the ant, Pristomyrmex pungens. J Ethol 21:145–151Google Scholar
  25. Seeley TD (1989) The honey bee colony as a super organism. Am Sci 77:546–553Google Scholar
  26. Sempo G, Detrain C (2010) Social task regulation in the dimorphic ant, Pheidole pallidula: the influence of caste ratio. J Insect Sci 10:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1994) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E, Deneubourg J (1998) Response threshold reinforcement and division of labour in insect societies. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tofts C, Franks NR (1992) Doing the right thing: ants, honeybees and naked mole-rats. TREE 7:346–349Google Scholar
  30. Tripet F, Nonacs P (2004) Foraging for work and age-based polyethism: the roles of age and previous experience on task choice in ants. Ethology 110:863–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weidenmüller A (2004) The control of nest climate in bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) colonies: interindividual variability and self reinforcement in fanning response. Behave Ecol 15:120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson EO (1976) Behavioral discretization and number of castes in an ant species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson EO (1984) The relation between caste ratios and division of labor in the ant genus Pheidole (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson EO (1985) Between-caste aversion as a basis for division of labor in the ant Pheidole pubiventris (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:35–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Winston ML, Katz SJ (1982) Foraging differences between cross-fostered honeybee workers (Apis mellifera) of European and Africanized races. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:125–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Animal Ecology, Department of Ecology and Systematics, Graduate School of AgricultureHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations