Abstract

Key social traits, like queen number in eusocial insect colonies, have long been considered plastic, but the recent finding that colony social organization is under strict genetic control in multiple ant lineages challenges this view. This begs the question of which hardwired behavioral mechanism(s) generate alternative forms of social organization during colony development. We addressed this question in the Alpine silver ant, Formica selysi, a species with two social forms determined by a supergene. Queens that carry exclusively the M haplotype are produced by and live in monogyne (= single-queen) colonies, whereas queens that carry at least one copy of the P haplotype are produced by and live in polygyne (= multiple-queen) colonies. With extensive field samplings and laboratory experiments, we show that both types of queens successfully establish colonies independently, without being accompanied by workers, but that they do so in contrasting ways. Monogyne queens were generally intolerant of other queens and founded colonies solitarily, whereas polygyne queens were mutually attracted to each other and mainly founded colonies cooperatively. These associations persisted for months after worker emergence, suggesting that cooperative colony-founding leads to permanent multiple queening. Overall, our study shows that queens of each social form found colonies independently in the field but that P-carrying queens are more likely to cooperate, thereby contributing to perpetuate alternative forms of social organization.Significance statementUnderstanding the genetic and behavioral underpinnings of social organization is a major goal in evolutionary biology. Recent studies have shown that colony social organization is controlled by supergenes in multiple ant lineages. But the behavioral processes linking the genotype of a queen to the type of colony she will form remain largely unknown. Here, we show that in Alpine silver ants, alternative supergene genotypes are associated with different levels of social attraction and tolerance in young queens. These hardwired differences in social traits make queens carrying the P supergene haplotype more prone to cooperate and form durable associations during independent colony-founding. These findings help explain how genetic variants induce alternative forms of social organization during the ontogeny of a colony. They also illustrate how simple phenotypic differences at the individual level can result in large differences at higher levels of organization.

Highlights

  • Understanding the genetic and behavioral underpinnings of social organization is a major goal in evolutionary biology

  • By which hardwired behavioral processes do ant queens belonging to each social form perpetuate the monogyne or polygyne colony social organization, respectively?

  • Plasticity in social organization has long been considered ubiquitous in group-living animals (Stacey and Bock 1978; Koenig et al 1992; Wcislo 1997; Heinze 2008; Gadau et al 2009; Maher and Burger 2011; Schradin et al 2012)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Understanding the genetic and behavioral underpinnings of social organization is a major goal in evolutionary biology (see Schradin 2013). As in other groupliving animals, social organization has long been considered a phenotypically plastic trait (Stacey and Bock 1978; Koenig et al 1992; Wcislo 1997; Heinze 2008; Gadau et al 2009; Maher and Burger 2011; Schradin et al 2012) This is because key social traits, like mode of colony-founding, levels of cooperation, and number of reproductive queens. Queen number has recently been found to be under strict genetic control in several ant lineages (Wang et al 2013; Purcell et al 2014; Braim 2015; Brelsford et al 2020; Yan et al 2020) In these clades, genetic polymorphisms at large supergenes (i.e., clusters of linked genes) determine whether each colony has one reproducing queen (= monogyne colony) or multiple reproducing queens (= polygyne colony). By which hardwired behavioral processes do ant queens belonging to each social form perpetuate the monogyne or polygyne colony social organization, respectively?

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call