Nest membership determines the levels of aggression and cooperation between females of a supposedly communal digger wasp

Abstract

Females of communal and eusocial Hymenoptera differ greatly in the treatment of conspecifics: communal species lack the nest membership-bias treatment via nestmate (NM) recognition, which is typical of eusocial Hymenoptera. Therefore, an analysis of social interactions can suggest whether a given bee or wasp is communal or eusocial. For this reason, we observed females of the digger wasp Cerceris rubida in experimental dyadic encounters. Because this species had previously been labeled "communal," we expected to find little evidence of a NM bias with respect to cooperation or aggression when paired with NMs and non-nestmates (NNM). Contrary to expectation, females were highly cooperative toward NMs and highly aggressive toward NNMs. Variation in the intensity of aggression toward NNMs partially stems from the degree to which the paired females differed in size. From these results and quantitative comparisons with studies on solitary, communal, and eusocial bee species, it appears that C. rubida has a more complex social organization than previously believed and, in particular, that females of this species exhibit NM recognition, a trait associated with eusociality.

Effects of nutritional deprivation on development and behavior in the subsocial beeCeratina calcarata(Hymenoptera: Xylocopinae)

“…Passing, and antenna-toantenna or head-to-head contact were considered tolerant behaviors. Following has been classified as a cooperative behavior in some communal species (McConnell-Garner and Kukuk, 1997;Boesi and Polidori, 2011), a subordinate behavior in some eusocial species (Breed et al, 1978;Michener, 1990) and as a dominant behavior in other species (West-Eberhard, 1979). Because of the uncertainty of the meaning of this interaction, following behaviors were classified separately.…”

Socially peaceful: foragers of the eusocial bee Lasioglossum malachurum are not aggressive against non-nestmates in circle-tube arenas

“…Behaviours pooled in the avoidance/withdrawal category actually include also some that, in certain social contexts, may reflect more dominance than avoidance (e.g., Palaban et al 2000;Arneson and Wcislo 2003), so it is often difficult to understand the meaning of such postures (see also Boesi and Polidori 2011) Also, in H. ligatus, the low frequency of withdrawals per encounter is less readily comprehensible when compared to that in other species (Palaban et al 2000). In general, it seems at least that avoidance is higher for solitary species (about 50-60%, see Polidori 2011 andPacker (2010) for recent reviews), while things are more unclear for social species.…”

“…In general, it seems at least that avoidance is higher for solitary species (about 50-60%, see Polidori 2011 andPacker (2010) for recent reviews), while things are more unclear for social species.…”

“…Eusociality, in particular, evolved independently three times within the family, with many reversals to solitary life-style (Brady et al 2006). Given such enormous social variability and flexibility, great attention was paid in the past to study how different social organisations are reflected in the behaviour expressed by females in intraspecific interactions (reviewed in Richards and Packer (2010) and Boesi and Polidori (2011)). …”

The Problems of a Priori Categorisation of Agonism and Cooperation: Circle‐Tube Interactions in Two Allodapine Bees

“…Buchwald & Breed ; Kudo et al. ; Peso & Richards ; Boesi & Polidori ). Even some primarily solitary species show an ability to recognise familiar individuals and respond accordingly (Wcislo ; Flores‐Prado et al.…”