Absence of within–colony kin discrimination in behavioural interactions of swarm–founding wasps

Strassmann, Joan E.; Klingler, Ceal J.; Arévalo, Elisabeth; Zacchi, Francesca; Husain, Amina; Williams, Jessica R.; Seppä, Perttu; Queller, David C.

doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0218

Cited by 39 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Preliminary genetic data suggest no correlation between rank and relatedness (J. Field and M. A. Cant, unpublished data), and foundresses probably do not discriminate between degrees of relatedness among nestmates (Queller et al 1990;Keller 1997;Strassmann et al 1997). The social structure of the group, revealed by our removal experiment, is the hidden causal factor responsible for much of the individual variation in within-group aggression in this species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Group productivity (number of cells) increases linearly with group size ( nests, , ; Cant n p 66 r p 0.94 P ! .0001 and Field 2001), and foundresses apparently do not discriminate between degrees of relatedness among nestmates (Queller et al 1990;Keller 1997;Strassmann et al 1997).…”

Section: Aggression and Inheritance Rank In Paper Waspsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, most studies have focused on the predicted effect of relatedness on individual variation in behavior such as helping or social aggression. In many cases, however, animals either do not or cannot respond facultatively to within-group variation in relatedness (Queller et al 1990;du Plessis 1993;Dunn et al 1995;Kempenaers and Sheldon 1996;DeHeer and Ross 1997;Keller 1997;Strassmann et al 1997;CluttonBrock et al 2000;Clutton-Brock 2002;Gilley 2003). The inability of relatedness to account for much within-group behavioral variation has focused attention on differences in cost as a potential explanation for individual differences in behavior (Heinsohn and Cockburn 1994;Boland et al 1997;Clutton-Brock et al 1998, 2000Heinsohn and Legge 1999;Cant and Field 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Individual Variation in Social Aggression and the Probability of Inheritance: Theory and a Field Test

Cant¹,

Llop²,

Field³

2006

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent theory suggests that much of the wide variation in individual behavior that exists within cooperative animal societies can be explained by variation in the future direct component of fitness, or the probability of inheritance. Here we develop two models to explore the effect of variation in future fitness on social aggression. The models predict that rates of aggression will be highest toward the front of the queue to inherit and will be higher in larger, more productive groups. A third prediction is that, in seasonal animals, aggression will increase as the time available to inherit the breeding position runs out. We tested these predictions using a model social species, the paper wasp Polistes dominulus. We found that rates of both aggressive "displays" (aimed at individuals of lower rank) and aggressive "tests" (aimed at individuals of higher rank) decreased down the hierarchy, as predicted by our models. The only other significant factor affecting aggression rates was date, with more aggression observed later in the season, also as predicted. Variation in future fitness due to inheritance rank is the hidden factor accounting for much of the variation in aggressiveness among apparently equivalent individuals in this species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Aggression and Inheritance Rank In Paper Waspsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Variation in Social Aggression and the Probability of Inheritance: Theory and a Field Test

Cant¹,

Llop²,

Field³

2006

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nepotistic interactions between workers and queens were not found in studies of the ants Formica argentea (114), Camponotus planatus (21), Camponotus yamaokai (111), Gnamptogenys striatula (7), or Leptothorax acervorum (53), the wasps Parachatergus colobopterus (118) or Polistes carolina (119), or the stingless bee Melipona bicolor (2). One exception is the wood ant Formica fusca, in which workers did preferentially rear more-related female larvae (50).…”

Section: Ratnieks Foster Wenseleersmentioning

confidence: 98%

Conflict Resolution in Insect Societies

Ratnieks

Foster

Wenseleers

2006

Annu. Rev. Entomol.

541

661

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

■ Abstract Although best known for cooperation, insect societies also manifest many potential conflicts among individuals. These conflicts involve both direct reproduction by individuals and manipulation of the reproduction of colony members. Here we review five major areas of reproductive conflict in insect societies: (a) sex allocation, (b) queen rearing, (c) male rearing, (d) queen-worker caste fate, and (e) breeding conflicts among totipotent adults. For each area we discuss the basis for conflict (potential conflict), whether conflict is expressed (actual conflict), whose interests prevail (conflict outcome), and the factors that reduce colony-level costs of conflict (conflict resolution), such as factors that cause workers to work rather than to lay eggs. Reproductive conflicts are widespread, sometimes having dramatic effects on the colony. However, three key factors (kinship, coercion, and constraint) typically combine to limit the effects of reproductive conflict and often lead to complete resolution. INTRODUCTIONObservation of an insect society readily reveals cooperation. Workers actively work for the good of the colony as they forage, guard, build, and nurse. Detailed study reinforces this impression. Workers cooperate to forage and defend by means of sophisticated communication signals (56,113). In some species cooperation includes extreme altruism, with defending workers sacrificing their lives as they deploy detachable stings or chemical-filled exploding abdomens to deter intruders (56,113). However, sophisticated cooperation in one area of social life does not preclude conflict in another. Egg laying, brood rearing, and queen-worker caste development, for example, can all be associated with significant conflict. Indeed, potential conflict in insect societies is inevitable because insect societies are almost always families, not clones. Nevertheless, conflict in insect colonies is less obvious 0066-4170/06/0107-0581$20.00 581 Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006.51:581-608. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of Massachusetts -Amherst on 10/14/09. For personal use only. 582RATNIEKS FOSTER WENSELEERS than cooperation, which suggests that conflict may often be resolved or weak. What factors enable insect societies to resolve their conflicts? In this review, we discuss the large body of work devoted to this question, which has focused primarily on the eusocial Hymenoptera (bees, ants, and wasps). INCLUSIVE FITNESS THEORY: EXPLANATION FOR BOTH COOPERATION AND CONFLICTInclusive fitness theory (47) provides a general explanation for reproductive division of labor in eusocial insects, with some individuals forgoing direct reproduction to help rear the offspring of other colony members. The intermediate levels of relatedness typically found in insect societies provide a strong incentive for altruism, and kin are also close at hand and can readily be helped by defense or food collection. Ironically, the same theory also led to the realization that insect societies are subject to internal conflic...

show abstract

“…An aggressive act involves one or more wasps aggressively chewing or pulling on a victim. The victim often responds by curling over on its side (Strassmann et al 1997;Herman et al 2000). Following 3 days of observation we replaced the envelope and left the colonies alone for 7 days.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Caste totipotency and conflict in a large–colony social insect

Strassmann

Sullender

Queller

2002

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most social insects with large, complex colonies workers and queens are morphologically quite distinct. This means that caste determination must occur prior to adulthood. However workers and queens in the swarm-founding epiponine wasps are often morphologically indistinguishable, or nearly so, suggesting that caste determination in these wasps could be quite different. To determine the extent of caste lability in the epiponine, Parachartergus colobopterus, we removed all the queens from one colony and all but one from another colony. Worker aggression diminished after queen removal. A week later the colony with no queens had a new, young cohort of mated queens. These must have been either adults or pupae at the time of queen removal, and so could not have been fed any differently from workers. Relatedness patterns confirmed that these new queens would normally have been workers and not queens. A model of inclusive fitness interests shows that workers ought to suppress new queen production, except at low queen numbers, a prediction supported by our empirical results. The patterns of social conflict over queenship resulting from swarm founding in a many-queen society may help to explain the unusually weak caste differentiation in the epiponines.

show abstract

Absence of within–colony kin discrimination in behavioural interactions of swarm–founding wasps

Cited by 39 publications

References 36 publications

Individual Variation in Social Aggression and the Probability of Inheritance: Theory and a Field Test

Individual Variation in Social Aggression and the Probability of Inheritance: Theory and a Field Test

Conflict Resolution in Insect Societies

Caste totipotency and conflict in a large–colony social insect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About