Ritualized aggressive behavior reveals distinct social structures in native and introduced range tawny crazy ants


Autoři: Edward G. LeBrun aff001;  Robert M. Plowes aff001;  Patricia J. Folgarait aff002;  Martin Bollazzi aff003;  Lawrence E. Gilbert aff004
Působiště autorů: Brackenridge Field Laboratory, Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America aff001;  Programa de Investigación en Interacciones Biológicas, Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Buenos Aires, Argentina aff002;  Departamento de Protección Vegetal, Unidad de Entomología, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo, Uruguay aff003;  Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225597

Souhrn

How workers within an ant colony perceive and enforce colony boundaries is a defining biological feature of an ant species. Ants fall along a spectrum of social organizations ranging from single-queen, single nest societies to species with multi-queen societies in which workers exhibit colony-specific, altruistic behaviors towards non-nestmate workers from distant locations. Defining where an ant species falls along this spectrum is critical for understanding its basic ecology. Herein we quantify queen numbers, describe intraspecific aggression, and characterize the distribution of colony sizes for tawny crazy ant (Nylanderia fulva) populations in native range areas in South America as well as in their introduced range in the Southeastern United States. In both ranges, multi-queen nests are common. In the introduced range, aggressive behaviors are absent at all spatial scales tested, indicating that within the population in the Southeastern United States N. fulva is unicolonial. However, this contrasts strongly with intraspecific aggression in its South American native range. In the native range, intraspecific aggression between ants from different nests is common and ritualized. Aggression is typically one-sided and follows a stereotyped sequence of escalating behaviors that stops before actual fighting occurs. Spatial patterns of non-aggressive nest aggregation and the transitivity of non-aggressive interactions demonstrate that results of neutral arena assays usefully delineate colony boundaries. In the native range, both the spatial extent of colonies and the average number of queens encountered per nest differ between sites. This intercontinental comparison presents the first description of intraspecific aggressive behavior for this invasive ant and characterizes the variation in colony organization in the native-range, a pre-requisite to a full understanding of the origins of unicoloniality in its introduced range.

Klíčová slova:

Aggression – Animal behavior – Animal sociality – Ants – Formic acid – Invasive species – North America – Social systems


Zdroje

1. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Tsutsui ND (2008) Genetics and behavior of a colonizing species: The invasive argentine ant. American Naturalist 172: S72–S84. doi: 10.1086/588638 18554146

2. Bourke AF, Franks NR, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants: Princeton University Press.

3. Arcila A, Quintero M (2005) Impacto y historia de la introducción de la hormiga loca (Paratrchina fulva) a Colombia. Informe final, contrato de prestación de servicios.

4. Zenner de Polania I, Martinez O (1992) Impacto ecológico de la hormiga loca, Paratrechina fulva (Mayr), en el Municipio de Cimitarra (Santander). Revista Colombiana de Entomología 18: 14–22.

5. Zenner-Polania I (1990) Biological aspects of the ''Hormiga Loca,'' Paratrechina (Nylanderia) fulva (Mayr), in Colombia. In: Vander Meer RK, Jaffe K, Cedeno A, editors. Applied myrmecology, a world perspective. Boulder, CO, 741 p: Westview Press. pp. 290–297.

6. Meyers JM, Gold RE (2008) Identification of an exotic pest ant, Paratrechina sp.nr. pubens (Hymenoptera:Formicidae), in Texas. Sociobiology 52: 589–604.

7. Deyrup M, Davis L, Cover S (2000) Exotic ants in Florida. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 126: 293–326.

8. Klotz JH, Mangold JR, Vail KM, Davis LR Jr, Patterson RS (1995) A survey of the urban pest ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of peninsular Florida. Florida Entomologist: 109–118.

9. Gotzek D, Brady SG, Kallal RJ, LaPolla JS (2012) The importance of using multiple approaches for identifying emerging invasive species: the case of the Rasberry crazy ant in the United States. PLOS one 7: e45314. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045314 23056657

10. EDDMapS. tawny crazy ant Nylanderia fulva (Mayr, 1862) The University of Georgia: Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health; 2019 [cited 2019 9/5/2019]. Available from: https://www.eddmaps.org/distribution/uscounty.cfm?sub=62935.

11. Ascunce MS, Yang C-C, Oakey J, Calcaterra L, Wu W-J, Shih C-J, et al. (2011) Global invasion history of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. Science 331: 1066–1068. doi: 10.1126/science.1198734 21350177

12. Vogel V, Pedersen JS, Giraud T, Krieger MJ, Keller L (2010) The worldwide expansion of the Argentine ant. Diversity and Distributions 16: 170–186.

13. Buczkowski G, Vargo EL, Silverman J (2004) The diminutive supercolony: the Argentine ants of the southeastern United States. Molecular Ecology 13: 2235–2242. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02261.x 15245397

14. LeBrun EG, Abbott J, Gilbert LE (2013) Imported crazy ant displaces imported fire ant, reduces and homogenizes grassland ant and arthropod assemblages. Biological Invasions 15: 2429–2442.

15. Eyer P-A, McDowell B, Johnson LN, Calcaterra LA, Fernandez MB, Shoemaker D, et al. (2018) Supercolonial structure of invasive populations of the tawny crazy ant Nylanderia fulva in the US. BMC evolutionary biology 18: 209. doi: 10.1186/s12862-018-1336-5 30594137

16. Horn KC, Eubanks MD, Siemann E (2013) The effect of diet and opponent size on aggressive interactions involving Caribbean crazy ants (Nylanderia fulva). PloS one 8: e66912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066912 23776702

17. Krushelnycky PD, Holway DA, LeBrun EG (2010) Invasion processes and causes of success. In: Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL, editors. Ant Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 245–260.

18. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 181–233.

19. Ross KG, Vargo EL, Keller L (1996) Social evolution in a new environment: the case of introduced fire ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93: 3021–3025. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.7.3021 11607647

20. Foucaud J, Orivel J, Fournier D, Delabie JHC, Loiseau A, Le Breton J, et al. (2009) Reproductive system, social organization, human disturbance and ecological dominance in native populations of the little fire ant, Wasmannia auropunctata. Molecular Ecology 18: 5059–5073. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04440.x 19943889

21. Le Breton J, Delabie JHC, Chazeau J, Dejean A, Jourdan H (2004) Experimental evidence of large-scale unicoloniality in the tramp ant Wasmannia auropunctata (Roger). Journal of Insect Behavior 17: 263–271.

22. Richard FJ, Hunt JH (2013) Intracolony chemical communication in social insects. Insectes Sociaux 60: 275–291.

23. Chen W, O'Sullivan Á, Adams ES (2018) Intraspecific aggression and the colony structure of the invasive ant Myrmica rubra. Ecological entomology 43: 263–272.

24. Chapuisat M, Bernasconi C, Hoehn S, Reuter M (2004) Nestmate recognition in the unicolonial ant Formica paralugubris. Behavioral Ecology 16: 15–19.

25. Astruc C, Malosse C, Errard C (2001) Lack of Intraspecific Aggression in the Ant Tetramorium bicarinatum: A Chemical Hypothesis. Journal of Chemical Ecology 27: 1229–1248. doi: 10.1023/a:1010324230982 11504025

26. Zinck L, Hora R, Châline N, Jaisson P (2008) Low intraspecific aggression level in the polydomous and facultative polygynous ant Ectatomma tuberculatum. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata 126: 211–216.

27. Thomas ML, Tsutsui ND, Holway DA (2004) Intraspecific competition influences the symmetry and intensity of aggression in the Argentine ant. Behavioral Ecology 16: 472–481.

28. Obin MS (1986) Nestmate recognition cues in laboratory and field colonies of Solenopsis invicta buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 12: 1965–1975. doi: 10.1007/BF01041858 24305971

29. Roulston TH, Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2003) Nestmate discrimination in ants: effect of bioassay on aggressive behavior. Insectes Sociaux 50: 151–159.

30. Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2005) Context-dependent nestmate discrimination and the effect of action thresholds on exogenous cue recognition in the Argentine ant. Animal Behaviour 69: 741–749.

31. Breed MD (2003) Nestmate Recognition Assays as a Tool for Population and Ecological Studies in Eusocial Insects: A Review. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 76: 539–550.

32. Horn K (2009) Examining competitive interactions between Rasberry crazy ants (Paratrechina sp. nr. pubens) and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) using laboratory and field studies [Masters of Arts]. Houston, Texas: Rice University. 70 p.

33. Kumar S, LeBrun EG, Stohlgren TJ, Stabach JA, McDonald DL, Oi D, et al. (2015) Evidence of niche shift and global invasion potential of the tawny crazy ant, Nylanderia fulva. Ecology and Evolution 5: 4628–4641. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1737 26668728

34. Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Holway DA, Case TJ (1999) Behavioral and genetic differentiation between native and introduced populations of the Argentine ant. Biological Invasions 1: 1–11.

35. Giraud T, Pedersen JS, Keller L (2002) Evolution of supercolonies: the Argentine ants of southern Europe. PNAS 99: 6075–6079. doi: 10.1073/pnas.092694199 11959924

36. SAS Institute Inc. (2011) JMP 14.0. 14.0 ed. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.

37. ESRI (2016) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.5. 10.5 ed. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

38. LeBrun EG, Jones NT, Gilbert LE (2014) Chemical warfare among invaders: A detoxification interaction facilitates an ant invasion. Science 343: 1014–1017. doi: 10.1126/science.1245833 24526314

39. Hofmann HA, Schildberger K (2001) Assessment of strength and willingness to fight during aggressive encounters in crickets. Animal Behaviour 62: 337–348.

40. Moli FL, Parmigiani S (1982) Intraspecific combat in the red wood ant (Formica lugubris, Zett.). Aggressive Behavior 8: 145–148.

41. Mercier J, Lenoir A, Dejean A (1997) Ritualised versus aggressive behaviours displayed by Polyrhachis laboriosa (F. Smith) during intraspecific competition. Behavioural processes 41: 39–50. doi: 10.1016/s0376-6357(97)00026-0 24896378

42. Thomas ML, Payne-Makrisa CM, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Holway DA (2006) When supercolonies collide: territorial aggression in an invasive and unicolonial social insect. Molecular Ecology 15: 4303–4315. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03038.x 17107467

43. Drescher J, Blüthgen N, Feldhaar H (2007) Population structure and intraspecific aggression in the invasive ant species Anoplolepis gracilipes in Malaysian Borneo. Molecular Ecology 16: 1453–1465. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03260.x 17391269

44. Morel L, Vandermeer RK, Lofgren CS (1990) Comparison of nestmate recognition between monogyne and polygyne populations of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 83: 642–647.

45. Heller NE (2004) Colony structure in introduced and native populations of the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. Insectes Sociaux 51: 378–386.

46. Fournier D, Tindo M, Kenne M, Masse PSM, Van Bossche V, De Coninck E, et al. (2012) Genetic structure, nestmate recognition and behaviour of two cryptic species of the invasive big-headed ant Pheidole megacephala. Plos One 7: e31480. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031480 22371822

47. Helantera H, Strassmann JE, Carrillo J, Queller DC (2009) Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 341–349.

48. Moffett MW (2012) Supercolonies of billions in an invasive ant: what is a society? Behavioral Ecology 23: 925–933.

49. Jouvenaz DP, Wojcik DP, Vander Meer RK (1989) First observation of polygyny in fire ants, Solenopsis spp., in South America. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology 96: 161–165.

50. Porter SD, Bhatkar A, Mulder R, Vinson SB, Clair DJ (1991) Distribution and density of polygyne fire ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in Texas. Journal of Economic Entomology 84: 866–874. doi: 10.1093/jee/84.3.866 1885844

51. Orivel J, Grangier J, Foucaud J, Le Breton J, Andres FX, Jourdan H, et al. (2009) Ecologically heterogeneous populations of the invasive ant Wasmannia auropunctata within its native and introduced ranges. Ecological Entomology 34: 504–512.

52. Hufbauer RA, Facon B, Ravigne V, Turgeon J, Foucaud J, Lee CE, et al. (2012) Anthropogenically induced adaptation to invade (AIAI): contemporary adaptation to human‐altered habitats within the native range can promote invasions. Evolutionary Applications 5: 89–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00211.x 25568032

53. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Liang DS, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) Spatiotemporal patterns of intraspecific aggression in the invasive Argentine ant. Animal Behaviour 64: 697–708.

54. Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV, Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 5948–5953. doi: 10.1073/pnas.100110397 10811892

55. Pedersen JS, Krieger MJB, Vogel V, Giraud T, Keller L (2006) Native supercolonies of unrelated individuals in the invasive Argentine ant. Evolution 60: 782–791. 16739459


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11