Distributed nestmate recognition in ants

Esponda, Fernando; Gordon, Deborah M.

doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2838

Cited by 40 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the U-present model is based on a more parsimonious assumption, and does not require a point-bypoint matching: only extra, but not missing, components elicit aggression. The U-present model is also compatible with the hypothesis of a "pre-filter mechanism" for nestmate recognition (Ozaki and Hefetz, 2014) and with the "distributed nestmate recognition model" (Esponda and Gordon, 2015). The study by Guerrieri et al (2009) only tested the effects of adding extra hydrocarbons that are not naturally present on the cuticle of the test species.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Individuals within a colony show variations in their chemical profile depending on their age, caste, functional role, social status, and diet (Hefetz, 2007;d'Ettorre and Lenoir, 2010;Liebig, 2010;Esponda and Gordon, 2015), requiring further plasticity in the overall perception and discrimination of the colony odor. The results of the present study show that ants discriminate large differences in hydrocarbon concentration more easily than small ones, suggesting that they might be more likely to reject individuals with more quantitatively dissimilar profiles than those with less dissimilar profiles compared to their own.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the opposite is not true: ants that differ from the discriminators only by the absence of a given hydrocarbon on the cuticle are not treated aggressively (Guerrieri et al, 2009). These results prompted the idea of a new model for nestmate recognition, the Undesirable-present (U-present) model (reviewed in van Zweden and d 'Ettorre, 2010; see also Esponda and Gordon, 2015). The template-label matching model is the classical model for nestmate recognition (Lenoir et al, 1999;Starks, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples range from insects and other invertebrates (d 'Ettorre and Moore, 2008;Aquiloni and Tricarico, 2015) to birds (Bonadonna and Sanz-Aguilar, 2012), reptiles (Mason and Parker, 2010;Heathcote et al, 2014) and mammals, including humans (reviewed in Wyatt, 2014). Social insects discriminate nestmates from non-nestmates on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative differences in their cuticular chemical profiles, which are primarily composed of long-chain hydrocarbons (Hefetz, 2007;Bagnères and Lorenzi, 2010;van Zweden and d'Ettorre, 2010;Esponda and Gordon, 2015). Cuticular profiles are complex mixtures of different hydrocarbon classes, including linear alkanes, methyl-branched alkanes, and alkenes, and may contain more than 100 compounds (Blomquist, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ants Discriminate Between Different Hydrocarbon Concentrations

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social insects typically discriminate nestmates from non-nestmates using colony-specific blends of cuticular hydrocarbons, which may be considered as a chemical label. Within a species, the cuticular profile shows approximately the same qualitative set of compounds, although these differ quantitatively among colonies. Thus, the relative proportions of particular hydrocarbons may be higher in individuals of one colony compared to those of another (conspecific) colony. Social insects must perceive these differences in ratios in order to efficiently recognize non-nestmates. However, little is known about the underlying perceptual mechanisms. Here we investigated whether ants can discriminate between different doses of individual linear or methyl-branched hydrocarbons. We used the ant Camponotus aethiops as our study organism and differential conditioning of the maxilla-labium extension response as the experimental procedure, to test olfactory discrimination between two concentrations of the same compound (one rewarded and the other punished), using large (wide range, 1:100) and small differences (narrow range, 1:10) in hydrocarbon concentrations. Ants discriminated well between wide-range concentrations of the same compound, but showed asymmetric generalization between narrow-range concentrations. These results indicate that a certain differential in hydrocarbon concentration is essential for efficient discrimination.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ants Discriminate Between Different Hydrocarbon Concentrations

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is likely that not all of the body parts are involved in nest-mate recognition signalling. Conventionally, the whole-body wash of ants is used to separate colonies [11][12][13]19], but clearly, studying the whole-animal CHC components cannot discern the sources of individual body part variation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Location-specific cuticular hydrocarbon signals in a social insect

Wang¹,

Goodger²,

Woodrow³

et al. 2016

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social insects use cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) to convey different social signals, including colony or nest identity. Despite extensive investigations, the exact source and identity of CHCs that act as nest-specific identification signals remain largely unknown. Perhaps this is because studies that identify CHC signals typically use organic solvents to extract a single sample from the entire animal, thereby analysing a cocktail of chemicals that may serve several signal functions. We took a novel approach by first identifying CHC profiles from different body parts of ants (Iridomyrmex purpureus), then used behavioural bioassays to reveal the location of specific social signals. The CHC profiles of both workers and alates varied between different body parts, and workers paid more attention to the antennae of non-nest-mate and the legs of nest-mate workers. Workers responded less aggressively to non-nest-mate workers if the CHCs on the antennae of their opponents were removed with a solvent. These data indicate that CHCs located on the antennae reveal nest-mate identity and, remarkably, that antennae both convey and receive social signals. Our approach and findings could be valuably applied to chemical signalling in other behavioural contexts, and provide insights that were otherwise obscured by including chemicals that either have no signal function or may be used in other contexts.

show abstract

Rainfall, neighbors, and foraging: The dynamics of a population of red harvester ant colonies 1988–2019

Sundaram

Steiner

Gordon

2022

Ecological Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changing climatic conditions are shaping how density mediates resource competition. Colonies of the seed-eating red harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus, live for about 30 years in desert grassland. They compete with conspecific neighbors for foraging area in which to search for seeds. This study draws on a long-term census of a population of about 300 colonies from 1988 to 2019 at a site near Rodeo, New Mexico, USA. Rainfall was high in the first decade of the study, and then declined as a severe drought began in about [2001][2002][2003]. We examine the effects on colony survival and recruitment of the spatial configuration of the local neighborhood of conspecific neighbors, using Voronoi polygons as a measure of a colony's foraging area, and consider how changing rainfall influences the effects of local neighborhoods. The results show that a colony's chances of surviving to the next year depend on its age and on the foraging area available in its local neighborhood. Recruitment, measured as a founding colony's chance of surviving to be 1 year old, depends on rainfall. In the earlier years of the study, when rainfall was high, colony numbers increased, and then began to decline after about 1997-1999, apparently due to crowding. As rainfall decreased, beginning in about 2001-2003, recruitment declined, and so did colony survival, leading to a trend toward earlier colony death which was most pronounced in 2016. As rainfall declined, apparently decreasing food availability, more foraging area was needed to sustain a colony: although the number of colonies declined, the impact of crowding by intraspecific neighbors increased. These processes maintain overdispersion on the scale of about 8 m, with transient clustering at larger spatial scales. In addition, other factors besides crowding, such as the colony's regulation of foraging activity to manage water loss, appear to contribute to a colony's survival. The adaptive capacity for selection on the collective behavior that regulates foraging activity may determine how the population responds to ongoing climate change and drought.

show abstract

Distributed nestmate recognition in ants

Cited by 40 publications

References 65 publications

Ants Discriminate Between Different Hydrocarbon Concentrations

Ants Discriminate Between Different Hydrocarbon Concentrations

Location-specific cuticular hydrocarbon signals in a social insect

Rainfall, neighbors, and foraging: The dynamics of a population of red harvester ant colonies 1988–2019

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About