Effects of genetic relatedness, spatial distance, and context on intraspecific aggression in the red wood ant Formica pratensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
In the present study, we tested the level of aggression of monodomous and polydomous colonies of the wood ant Formica pratensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with a behavioral assay in nature and laboratory conditions to see if the ants from neighboring colonies are more tolerant or more aggressive to each other than those from greater distances. We also tested how context (nature and laboratory conditions) affected aggression. Our results showed that the monodomous colonies were highly aggressive to all neighboring or nonneighboring conspecifics in nature irrespective of the spatial distance. The polydomous colony showed no aggression towards neighboring conspecifics but the level of aggression increased with increasing spatial distance between the colonies. The level of aggression of tested colonies in laboratory conditions was significantly low, irrespective of whether they were monodomous or polydomous, indicating that aggression is context dependent. A DNA barcoding technique based on mitochondrial COI gene sequencing was applied to determine the genetic relatedness between the colonies. The results of the genetic analysis, in combination with results of behavioral assays, revealed that aggression behavior of the polydomous colony was affected by both the genetic relatedness and the spatial distance between the colonies while there was no clear separation of effects of genetic relatedness and spatial distance on aggression in the monodomous colonies.
___
- Aktac N, Camlitepe Y, Aras A, Kiran K. (1998) A comparative study
on the distribution of
Formica rufa
group (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae) in Turkish Thrace and Anatolia. II. International
Congress on Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation of the
Balkan Fauna. Bioecco2, 16–20 September 1998; Ohrid,
Macedonia, p. 69.
- Benedek K, Kóbori OT (2014). ‘Nasty neighbor’ effect in
Formica
pratensis
Retz. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). North-West J
Zool 10: 245-250.
- Bennett B (1989). Nestmate recognition systems in a monogynouse
polygynous species pair of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
I. Worker and queen derived cues. Sociobiology 16: 121-139.
- Beye M, Neumann P, Chapuisat M, Pamilo P, Moritz RFA (1998).
Nestmate recognition and the genetic relatedness of nests in
the ant
Formica
pratensis
. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43: 67-72.
- Bos N, d’Ettorre P (2012). Recognition of social identity in ants. Front
Psychol 3: 1-6.
- Czechowski W (1975). Bionomics of
Formica
(
Coptoformica
)
pressilabris
Nyl. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Annales
Zoologici 33: 103-125.
- Czechowski W (1996) Colonies of hybrids and mixed colonies;
interspecific nest takeover in wood ants (Hymenoptera,
Formicidae). Memorabilia Zoologica 50: 1-116.
- Czechowski W, Radchenko A, Czechowska W, Vepsäläinen K (2012).
The Ants of Poland with Reference to the Myrmecofauna of
Europe. Warsaw, Poland: Museum and Institute of Zoology
of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Natura optima dux
Foundation, pp. 496.
- Chen JSC, Nonacs P (2000). Nestmate recognition and intraspecific
aggression based on environmental cues in Argentine ants
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 93: 1333-
1337.
- Chapuisat M, Bernasconi C, Hoehn S, Reuter M (2005). Nestmate
recognition in the unicolonial ant
Formica
paralugubris
. Behav
Ecol 16: 15-19.
- Couvillon MJ, Segers FHID, Cooper-Bownan R, Truslove G,
Nascimiento DL, Nascimiento FS, Ratnieks FSL (2013).
Context affects nestmate recognition errors in honey bees and
stingless bees. J Exp Biol 216: 3055-3061.
- Felsenstein J (1985). Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach
using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783-791.
- Foitzik S, Sturm H, Pusch K, d’Ettorre P, Heinze J (2007). Nestmate
recognition and intraspecific chemical and genetic variation in
Temnothorax
ants. Anim Behav 73: 999-1007.
- Gamboa GJ, Reeve HK, Holmes WG (1991). Conceptual issues
and methodology in kin-recognition research: a critical
discussion. Ethology 88: 109-127.
- Gordon
DM
(1989).
A
nts distinguish neighbors from
strangers. Oecologia 81: 198-200.
- Guerrieri FJ, Nehring V, Jorgensen CG, Nielsen J, Galizia CG,
d’Ettorre P (2009). Ants recognize foes not friends. Proc R Soc
Lond B Biol Sci 276: 2461-2468.
- Heinze J, Foitzik S, Hippert A, Hölldobler B (1996). Apparent dear-
enemy phenomenon and environment-based recognition cues
in the ant
Leptothorax
nylanderi
. Ethology 102: 510-522.
- Helantera H, Strassmann JE, Carrillo J, Queller DC (2009).
Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and
where are they going? Trends Ecol Evol 24: 341-349.
- Hölldobler B (1976). Recruitment behaviour, home range orientation
and territoriality in harvester ants,
Pogonomyrmex
. Behav Ecol
Sociobiol 1: 3-44.
- Hölldobler B, Lumsden CJ (1980). Territorial strategies in ants.
Science 210: 732-739.
- Holway DA, Suarez AV, Case TJ (1998). Loss of intraspecific
aggression in the success of a widespread invasive social insect.
Science 282: 949-952.
- Holzer B, Chapuisat M, Kremer N, Finet C, Keller L (2006).
Unicoloniality, recognition and genetic differentiation in a
native
Formica
ant. J Evolution Biol 19: 2031-2039.
- Jutsum A, Saunders T, Cherrett J (1979). Intraspecific aggression
in the leaf-cutting ant
Acromyrmex octospinosus
. Anim
Behav 27: 839-844.
- Kimura M (1980). A simple method for estimating evolutionary
rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of
nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 16: 111-120.
- Kiran K, Karaman C (2012). First annotated checklist of the ant
fauna of Turkey (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zootaxa 3548:
1-38.
- Kiss K, Kóbori O (2010). Low intraspecific aggression at polydomous
colonies of
Formica exsecta
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae),
Entomologica Romanica 16: 27-32.
- Knaden M, Wehner R (2003). Nest defense and conspecific enemy
recognition in the desert ant
Cataglyphis
fortis
. J Insect Behav
16: 717-730.
- Langen TA, Tripet F, Nonacs P (2000). The red and the black:
habituation and the dear-enemy phenomenon in two desert
Pheidole
ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48: 285-292.
- Lenoir A, d’Ettorre P, Errard C, Hefetz A (2001). Chemical ecology
and social parasitism in ants. Annu Rev Entomol 46: 573-599.
- Liang D, Silverman J (2000). “You are what you eat”: diet modifies
cuticular hydrocarbons and nestmate recognition in the
Argentine ant,
Linepithema
humile
. Natunvissenschaften 87:
412-416.
- Martin SJ, Drijfhout FP (2009). Nestmate and task cues are influenced
and encoded differently within ant cuticular hydrocarbon
profiles. J Chem Ecol 35: 368-374.
- Martin SJ, Vitikainen E, Helantera H, Drijfhout FP (2008).
Chemical basis of nest-mate discrimination in the ant
Formica
exsecta
. Proc Biol Sci B 275: 1271-1278.
- Mayade S, Cammaerts MC, Suzzoni JP (1993). Home-range marking
and territorial marking in
Cataglyphis
cursor
(Hymenoptera,
Formicidae). Behav Proc 30: 131-142.
- Morel L, Vander Meer RK, Lofgren CS (1990). Comparison of
nestmate recognition between monogyne and polygyne
populations of
Solenopsis
invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Ann Entomol Soc Am 83: 642-647.
- Newey PS, Robson SK, Crozier RH (2010). Weaver ants
Oecophylla
smaragdina
encounter nasty neighbors rather than dear
enemies. Ecology 91: 2366-2372.
- Obin MS, Vander Meer RK (1988). Sources of nestmate recognition
cues in the imported fire ant
Solenopsis
invicta
Buren
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Anim Behav 36: 1361-1370.
- Pfennig DW, Reeve HK (1980). Neighbor recognition and context-
dependent aggression in a solitary wasp,
Sphecius
speciosus
(Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). Ethology 80: 1-18.
- Pirk CWW, Neumann P, Moritz RFA, Pamilo P (2001). Intranest
relatedness and nestmate recognition in the meadow ant
Formica
pratensis
(R.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49: 366-374.
- Pisarski B (1982) Influence de la structure sociale sur le comportement
agressif des ouvrières de
Formica
(
Captoformica
)
exsecta
Nyl.
Memorabilia Zoologica 38: 113-136.
- Rosengren R, Sundström L, Fortelius W (1993). Monogyny and
polygyny in
Formica
ants: the results of alternative dispersal
tactics. In: Keller L, editor. Queen Number and Sociality in
Insects. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 308-333.
- Rosset H, Schwander T, Chapuisat M (2007). Nestmate recognition
and levels of aggression are not altered by changes in genetic
diversity in a socially polymorphic ant. Anim Behav 74: 951-
956.
- Roulston TH, Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2003). Nestmate
discrimination in ants: effect of bioassay on aggressive
behavior. Insect Soc 50: 151-159.
- Saitou N, Nei M (1987). The neighbor-joining method: a new method
for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4: 406-425.
- Sanada-Morimura S, Minai M, Yokoyama M, Hirota T, Satoh T,
Obara Y (2003). Encounter-induced hostility to neighbors in
the ant
Pristomyrmex pungens
. Behav Ecol 14: 713-718.
- Seifert B (1996). Ameisen: Beobachten, Bestimmen. Augsburg,
Germany: Naturbuch.
- Souza DJ, Della Lucia TMC, Errard C, Richard FJ, Lima ER (2006).
Behavioural and chemical studies of discrimination processes
in the leaf-cutting ant
Acromyrmex
laticeps
nigrosetosus
(FOREL, 1908). Braz J Biol 66: 863-871.
- Starks PT, Fischer DJ, Watson RE, Melikian GL, Nath SD (1998).
Context-dependent nestmate-discrimination in the paper
wasp,
Polistes
dominulus
: a critical test of the optimal
acceptance threshold model. Anim Behav 56: 449-458.
- Stuart RJ, Herbers JM (2000). Nest mate recognition in ants with
complex colonies: within- and between-population variation.
Behav Ecol 11: 676-685.
- Suarez AV, Holway DA, Liang DS, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002).
Spatio-temporal patterns of intraspecific aggression in the
invasive Argentine ant. Anim Behav 64: 692-708.
- Sundström L (1997). Queen acceptance and nestmate recognition
in monogyne and polygyne colonies of the ant
Formica
truncorum
. Anim Behav 53: 499-510.
- Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S
(2011). MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis
using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and
maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 28: 2731-2739.
- Tanner CJ, Adler FR (2009). To fight or not to fight: context-
dependent interspecific aggression in competing ants. Anim
Behav 77: 297-305.
- Thomas ML, Parry LJ, Allen RA, Elgar MA (1999). Geographic
affinity, cuticular hydrocarbons and colony recognition
in the Australian meat ant
Iridomyrmex
purpureus
.
Naturwissenschaften 86: 87-92.
- Thomas ML, Payne-Makrisa CM, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Holway
DA (2006). When supercolonies collide: territorial aggression
in an invasive and unicolonial social insect. Mol Ecol 15: 4303-
4315.
- Torres CW, Brandt M, Tsutsui ND (2007). The role of cuticular
hydrocarbons as chemical cues for nestmate recognition in
the invasive Argentine ant (
Linepithema humile
) Insect Soc 54:
363-373.
- Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV, Grosberg RK (2003). Genetic diversity,
asymmetrical aggression, and recognition in a widespread
invasive species. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 1078-1083.
- Vander Meer RK, Morel L (1998). Nestmate recognition in ants. In:
Vander Meer RK, Breed MD, Espelie KE, Winston ML, editors.
Pheromone Communication in Social Insects. Boulder, CO,
USA: Westview Press, pp. 79-103.
- van Wilgenburg E (2007). The influence of relatedness,
neighbourhood and overall distance on colony mate
recognition in a polydomous ant. Ethology 113: 1185-119.
- Velásquez N, Gómez M, González J, Vásquez RA (2006). Nest-mate
recognition and the effect of distance from the nest on the
aggressive behaviour of
Camponotus
chilensis
(Hymenoptera:
Formicidae). Behaviour 143: 811-824.
- Wilson EO (1975). Sociobiology: the New Synthesis. Cambridge,
MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
- Zinck L, Jaisson P, Hora RR, Denis D, Poteaux C, Doums C (2007).
The role of breeding system on ant ecological dominance:
genetic analysis of
Ectatomma tuberculatum
. Behav Ecol 18:
701-708.