Author
Listed:
- Ornela De Gasperin
- Pierre Blacher
- Michel Chapuisat
- Emilie Snell-Rood
Abstract
Relatedness underlies the evolution of reproductive altruism, yet eusocial insect colonies occasionally accept unrelated reproductive queens. Why would workers living in colonies with related queens accept unrelated ones, when they do not gain indirect fitness through their reproduction? To understand this seemingly paradox, we investigated whether acceptance of unrelated queens by workers is an incidental phenomenon resulting from failure to recognize non-nestmate queens, or whether it is adaptively favored in contexts where cooperation is preferable to rejection. Our study system is the socially polymorphic Alpine silver ant, Formica selysi. Within populations, some colonies have a single queen, and others have multiple, sometimes unrelated, breeding queens. Social organization is determined by a supergene with two haplotypes. In a first experiment, we investigated whether the number of reproductive queens living in colonies affects the ability of workers at rejecting alien queens, as multiple matrilines within colonies could increase colony odor diversity and reduce workers’ recognition abilities. As workers rejected all alien queens, independently of the number of queens heading their colony, we then investigated whether their acceptance is flexible and favored in specific conditions. We found that workers frequently accepted alien queens when these queens came with a workforce. Our results show that workers flexibly adjust their acceptance of alien queens according to the situation. We discuss how this conditional acceptance of unrelated queens may be adaptive by providing benefits through increased colony size and/or genetic diversity, and by avoiding rejection costs linked to fighting.
Suggested Citation
Ornela De Gasperin & Pierre Blacher & Michel Chapuisat & Emilie Snell-Rood, 2021.
"Social insect colonies are more likely to accept unrelated queens when they come with workers,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(5), pages 1004-1011.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:32:y:2021:i:5:p:1004-1011.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:32:y:2021:i:5:p:1004-1011.. 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.