IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v27y2016i1p304-311..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ant recognition cue diversity is higher in the presence of slavemaker ants

Author

Listed:
  • Evelien Jongepier
  • Susanne Foitzik

Abstract

Social insect colonies defend themselves from intruders through nestmate recognition, yet the evolution and maintenance of recognition cue diversity is still poorly understood. We compared the recognition cue diversity of 9 populations of Temnothorax longispinosus ant colonies, including populations that harbored the socially parasitic slavemaker ant, Protomognathus americanus. Although ants recognize friends from foe based on recognition cues encoded in their cuticular hydrocarbon profile, which specific compounds are involved in recognition is unknown for most species. We therefore started by statistically identifying 9 putative recognition compounds involved in worker and colony aggression. We find that colonies that co-occur with slavemakers were more variable in these recognition compounds and hence less similar in their recognition profiles than unparasitized populations. Importantly, these differences appear to be regulated by processes that specifically act on the level of the colony, which rules out potentially confounding effects altering chemical profiles of populations, such as differences in abiotic conditions or standing genetic variation. Instead, our findings indicate that slavemakers drive recognition cue diversity in their ant hosts, in much the same way that avian hosts diversify their egg appearance in response to brood parasite pressure. Such recognition cue diversification through negative frequency-dependent selection favors rare host phenotypes and renders it impossible for parasites to match the recognition profile of all potential hosts.

Suggested Citation

  • Evelien Jongepier & Susanne Foitzik, 2016. "Ant recognition cue diversity is higher in the presence of slavemaker ants," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(1), pages 304-311.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:304-311.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arv153
    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:27:y:2016:i:1:p:304-311.. 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.