4.7 Article

Kin-informative recognition cues in ants

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 278, Issue 1714, Pages 1942-1948

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2295

Keywords

nepotism; social insect; cuticular hydrocarbons; social evolution; kin recognition

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council
  2. Leverhulme Foundation
  3. German Academic Exchange Service
  4. Danish National Research Foundation
  5. NERC [NE/F011253/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/F011253/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although social groups are characterized by cooperation, they are also often the scene of conflict. In non-clonal systems, the reproductive interests of group members will differ and individuals may benefit by exploiting the cooperative efforts of other group members. However, such selfish behaviour is thought to be rare in one of the classic examples of cooperation-social insect colonies-because the colony-level costs of individual selfishness select against cues that would allow workers to recognize their closest relatives. In accord with this, previous studies of wasps and ants have found little or no kin information in recognition cues. Here, we test the hypothesis that social insects do not have kin-informative recognition cues by investigating the recognition cues and relatedness of workers from four colonies of the ant Acromyrmex octospinosus. Contrary to the theoretical prediction, we show that the cuticular hydrocarbons of ant workers in all four colonies are informative enough to allow full-sisters to be distinguished from half-sisters with a high accuracy. These results contradict the hypothesis of non-heritable recognition cues and suggest that there is more potential for within-colony conflicts in genetically diverse societies than previously thought.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available