IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v13y2002i4p531-542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reproduction in foundress associations of the social wasp, Polistes carolina: conventions, competition, and skew

Author

Listed:
  • Perttu Seppä
  • David C. Queller
  • Joan E. Strassmann

Abstract

Who reproduces in colonies of social insects is determined by some combination of direct competition and more peaceful convention. We studied these two alternatives in foundresses of the paper wasp, Polistes carolina, by examining two different contexts: what determines who becomes the dominant reproductive and what determines the amount of reproduction obtained by subordinates. The dominant queen on most nests was the foundress to arrive first, rather than the largest foundress, expected to be best at fighting. This suggests that dominance is initially determined by convention, although the persistence of some aggressive conflict throughout the foundress period suggests that this convention is not absolute. Attempts to explain the division of reproduction using several skew theories were generally unsuccessful. Skew was not correlated with relatedness, size differences, colony productivity, and challenges by the subordinate. P. carolina showed high constraints against solitary nesting, with a minority of females attempting to nest alone, and none succeeding. In this situation, most skew theories predict that group stability will be independent of relatedness, yet nearly all collected subordinates were full sisters to the queen. Reproductive partitioning in early P. carolina colonies may have more to do with enhancing worker production than with conflict over direct fitness. Copyright 2002.

Suggested Citation

  • Perttu Seppä & David C. Queller & Joan E. Strassmann, 2002. "Reproduction in foundress associations of the social wasp, Polistes carolina: conventions, competition, and skew," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 13(4), pages 531-542, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:4:p:531-542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:4:p:531-542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.