Cuticular hydrocarbons mediate discrimination of reproductives and nonreproductives in the ant Myrmecia gulosa

Abstract

In many species of social insects, the cuticular hydrocarbons of adults vary with both colony identity and individual physiology (oogenesis). Such variations have been shown in some ants and social wasps to function in nestmate recognition, but as yet there is no demonstration of their use by workers to recognize egg layers. We report that in the ant Myrmecia gulosa, workers can discriminate queens and fertile workers from infertile individuals based on distinctive blends of long-chained hydrocarbons present both on the cuticle and in the postpharyngeal gland. The purified hydrocarbon fraction of cuticular extracts from queens elicited high interest in workers, unlike the nonhydrocarbon fraction. However, both fractions were necessary to trigger a response of maximal intensity. In contrast, extracts of mandibular and Dufour glands from queens or infertile workers were not treated differentially by workers. We suggest that cuticular hydrocarbons function as pheromones allowing for recognition of the queen as well as egg-laying workers.

Cuticular Hydrocarbons Provide Reliable Cues of Fertility in the Ant Gnamptogenys striatula

“…This reduction in aggression may coincide with the development of a specific cuticular hydrocarbon profile in egg-laying individuals. Indeed, consistent chemical differences in the cuticular profiles between fertile and infertile individuals have now been shown in Diacamma ceylonense (Cuvillier-Hot et al, 2001), Dinoponera quadriceps (Monnin et al, 1998), Harpegnathos saltator (Liebig et al, 2000), Myrmecia gulosa (Dietemann et al, 2003), Pachycondyla cf. inversa (Tentschert et al, 2001;Heinze et al, 2002), and Streblognathus peetersi (Cuvillier-Hot et al, 2004).…”

“…The elongation reactions, following a switch to reproductive maturation, have been well studied in other insect taxa (Tillman-Wall et al, 1992;Blomquist et al, 1995Blomquist et al, , 1998Tillman et al, 1999), and it is likely that a similar mechanism is acting in the species studied here, G. striatula. In two species, the dolichoderine ant Linepithema humile and the myrmeciine ant M. gulosa, the shift has been shown to proceed in the opposite direction (de Biseau et al, 2004;Dietemann et al, 2003), with queens being characterized by shorterchain hydrocarbons than workers. Mechanistically, the chemical differences between fertile and infertile individuals might be caused by the differential activity of oenocytes, which are involved in yolk production (Jensen and Borgesen, 2000) and are also the producers of cuticular hydrocarbons (Diehl, 1975;Fan et al, 2003).…”

Surface hydrocarbons of queen eggs regulate worker reproduction in a social insect

“…In several ant species, the hydrocarbon profiles of adults correlate with the fertility of individuals, which suggests that hydrocarbons represent a signal regulating reproduction (35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45). In fact, workers can identify gradual differences in the fertility of nestmates in some of these species (42,46) as well as in others (47)(48)(49).…”

“…In fact, workers can identify gradual differences in the fertility of nestmates in some of these species (42,46) as well as in others (47)(48)(49). In Myrmecia gulosa, it has been experimentally shown that workers can differentiate between the hydrocarbon profiles of reproductives and infertile workers (44). However, in these species it had not been demonstrated that cuticular hydrocarbons regulate worker reproduction.…”

Disentangling the effect of insemination and ovary development on the cuticular hydrocarbon profile in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

“…Strong effects of fertility on the CHC profile and thus distinct queen specific CHC profiles have already been found in social wasps (e.g., Sledge et al 2001Sledge et al , 2004, ants (e.g., Monnin et al 1998;Peeters et al 1999;Liebig et al 2000;Heinze et al 2002;Dietemann et al 2003Dietemann et al , 2005Smith et al 2008Smith et al , 2009, and bumblebees (Ayasse et al 1995;Sramkova et al 2008). However, in the majority of those studies, potential effects of insemination and ovarian development on CHC profiles were not investigated separately.…”