4.5 Article

QUEEN SIGNALING IN SOCIAL WASPS

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 68, 期 4, 页码 976-986

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12314

关键词

Vespidae; reproductive division of labor; honest signal; pheromone; cuticular hydrocarbons; Animal communication

资金

  1. Danish Council for Independent Research [FNU 09-066595]
  2. EU Marie Curie Excellence Grant [CODICES-EXT-CT-2004-014202]
  3. Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Vlaanderen)
  4. Research Foundation Flanders [FWO GNM-B5996-KAN2006]
  5. Centre of Excellence
  6. KU Leuven Research Fund [PF/2010/007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Social Hymenoptera are characterized by a reproductive division of labor, whereby queens perform most of the reproduction and workers help to raise her offspring. A long-lasting debate is whether queens maintain this reproductive dominance by manipulating their daughter workers into remaining sterile (queen control), or if instead queens honestly signal their fertility and workers reproduce according to their own evolutionary incentives (queen signaling). Here, we test these competing hypotheses using data from Vespine wasps. We show that in natural colonies of the Saxon wasp, Dolichovespula saxonica, queens emit reliable chemical cues of their true fertility and that these putative queen signals decrease as the colony develops and worker reproduction increases. Moreover, these putative pheromones of D. saxonica show significant conservation with those of Vespula vulgaris and other Vespinae, thereby arguing against fast evolution of signals as a result of a queen-worker arms race ensuing from queen control. Lastly, levels of worker reproduction in these species correspond well with their average colony kin structures, as predicted by the queen signaling hypothesis but not the queen control hypothesis. Altogether, this correlative yet comprehensive analysis provides compelling evidence that honest signaling explains levels of reproductive division of labor in social wasps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据