IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v20y2009i5p922-929.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Larger colonies do not have more specialized workers in the ant Temnothorax albipennis

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Dornhaus
  • Jo-Anne Holley
  • Nigel R. Franks

Abstract

Social insects are distinguished by their extraordinary degree of cooperation and the complexity of their group organization. However, a high proportion of individuals (often >50% at any one time) in a social insect colony tend to be inactive. It has been hypothesized that larger colonies can afford such inactivity because of efficiencies gained through stronger division of labor. We quantify the degree to which colonies of different sizes exhibit division of labor, and what proportion tends to be inactive, in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Colony size neither influenced individual specialization nor overall division of labor in this species and larger colonies did not show a higher proportion of inactive workers. Interestingly, small colonies seemed to rely more on a small number of high-performance workers: the proportion of work performed by the single most active worker is significantly higher in smaller colonies for several tasks. More research is needed to resolve when and how colony size affects collective organization and division of labor in insect colonies. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Dornhaus & Jo-Anne Holley & Nigel R. Franks, 2009. "Larger colonies do not have more specialized workers in the ant Temnothorax albipennis," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(5), pages 922-929.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:5:p:922-929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arp070
    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:20:y:2009:i:5:p:922-929. 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.