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.

Keywords:

Context-dependent aggression, intraspecific aggression, social structure, dear enemy effect nasty neighbor effect, DNA barcoding,

PDF

___

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.