Behavioural differences between male and female replacement reproductives in Kalotermes flavicollis (Isoptera, Kalotermitidae)

Sbrenna, G.

doi:10.1007/s000400050131

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the gland occurs in alate imagoes only, and that volatile secretion can provide a pheromonal signal, one putative function of the clypeal gland is that it produces the pheromones signalling the reproductive status of the royal couple. Kings and queens are attractive for sterile castes (Maistrello and Sbrenna, 1999, personal observation), and thus reproductive-specific glands can provide information about their identity. Another possible function of the clypeal gland secretion is marking the oral side of the reproductives to ease worker feeding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The clypeal gland: A new exocrine gland in termite imagoes (Isoptera: Serritermitidae, Rhinotermitidae, Termitidae)

Křížková

Bourguignon

Vytisková

et al. 2014

Arthropod Structure & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The clypeal gland: A new exocrine gland in termite imagoes (Isoptera: Serritermitidae, Rhinotermitidae, Termitidae)

Křížková

Bourguignon

Vytisková

et al. 2014

Arthropod Structure & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Despite these sophisticated mechanisms of task allocation, perhaps one of the most surprising features of social insects is that high levels of inactivity are common in most species. Social insect colonies typically have upwards of 50% of their workers inactive at any one time (honey bees [ 45 , 26 , 46 ], bumble bees [ 47 ], wasps [ 48 ], termites [ 49 ], and ants [ 50 – 54 ]). Although individual activity level may vary over the course of the day, or across days, the relative activity ranks of individual workers are consistent among workers over moderate timescales (one to a few weeks [ 35 , 35 , 50 , 55 – 57 ]), indicating that workers are consistently more or less active.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who needs ‘lazy’ workers? Inactive workers act as a ‘reserve’ labor force replacing active workers, but inactive workers are not replaced when they are removed

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social insect colonies are highly successful, self-organized complex systems. Surprisingly however, most social insect colonies contain large numbers of highly inactive workers. Although this may seem inefficient, it may be that inactive workers actually contribute to colony function. Indeed, the most commonly proposed explanation for inactive workers is that they form a ‘reserve’ labor force that becomes active when needed, thus helping mitigate the effects of colony workload fluctuations or worker loss. Thus, it may be that inactive workers facilitate colony flexibility and resilience. However, this idea has not been empirically confirmed. Here we test whether colonies of Temnothorax rugatulus ants replace highly active (spending large proportions of time on specific tasks) or highly inactive (spending large proportions of time completely immobile) workers when they are experimentally removed. We show that colonies maintained pre-removal activity levels even after active workers were removed, and that previously inactive workers became active subsequent to the removal of active workers. Conversely, when inactive workers were removed, inactivity levels decreased and remained lower post-removal. Thus, colonies seem to have mechanisms for maintaining a certain number of active workers, but not a set number of inactive workers. The rapid replacement (within 1 week) of active workers suggests that the tasks they perform, mainly foraging and brood care, are necessary for colony function on short timescales. Conversely, the lack of replacement of inactive workers even 2 weeks after their removal suggests that any potential functions they have, including being a ‘reserve’, are less important, or auxiliary, and do not need immediate recovery. Thus, inactive workers act as a reserve labor force and may still play a role as food stores for the colony, but a role in facilitating colony-wide communication is unlikely. Our results are consistent with the often cited, but never yet empirically supported hypothesis that inactive workers act as a pool of ‘reserve’ labor that may allow colonies to quickly take advantage of novel resources and to mitigate worker loss.

show abstract

“…Data from the literature show that in most colonies of social insects, upward of 50% of workers appear to be inactive at any one time. This is true across most species of social insects, including honey bees (Lindauer 1952;Moore et al 1998;Moore 2001), bumble bees (Jandt et al 2012), wasps (Gadagkar and Joshi 1984), termites (Maistrello and Sbrenna 1999), and ants (Herbers 1983;Herbers and Cunningham 1983;Cole 1986;Retana and Cerd a 1990;Dornhaus 2008;Charbonneau et al 2014). However, beyond the prevalence of inactivity, we know very little about this behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Are the “Lazy” Ants? The Function of Inactivity in Social Insects and a Possible Role of Constraint: Inactive Ants Are Corpulent and May Be Young and/or Selfish

Charbonneau

Poff

Nguyen

et al. 2017

Integrative and Comparative Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social insect colonies are commonly thought of as highly organized and efficient complex systems, yet high levels of worker inactivity are common. Although consistently inactive workers have been documented across many species, very little is known about the potential function or costs associated with this behavior. Here we ask what distinguishes these "lazy" individuals from their nestmates. We obtained a large set of behavioral and morphological data about individuals, and tested for consistency with the following evolutionary hypotheses: that inactivity results from constraint caused by worker (a) immaturity or (b) senescence; that (c) inactive workers are reproducing; that inactive workers perform a cryptic task such as (d) acting as communication hubs or (e) food stores; and that (f) inactive workers represent the "slow-paced" end of inter-worker variation in "pace-of-life." We show that inactive workers walk more slowly, have small spatial fidelity zones near the nest center, are more corpulent, are isolated in colony interaction networks, have the smallest behavioral repertoires, and are more likely to have oocytes than other workers. These results are consistent with the hypotheses that inactive workers are immature and/or storing food for the colony; they suggest that workers are not inactive as a consequence of senescence, and that they are not acting as communication hubs. The hypotheses listed above are not mutually exclusive, and likely form a "syndrome" of behaviors common to inactive social insect workers. Their simultaneous contribution to inactivity may explain the difficulty in finding a simple answer to this deceptively simple question.

show abstract

Behavioural differences between male and female replacement reproductives in Kalotermes flavicollis (Isoptera, Kalotermitidae)

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

The clypeal gland: A new exocrine gland in termite imagoes (Isoptera: Serritermitidae, Rhinotermitidae, Termitidae)

The clypeal gland: A new exocrine gland in termite imagoes (Isoptera: Serritermitidae, Rhinotermitidae, Termitidae)

Who needs ‘lazy’ workers? Inactive workers act as a ‘reserve’ labor force replacing active workers, but inactive workers are not replaced when they are removed

Who Are the “Lazy” Ants? The Function of Inactivity in Social Insects and a Possible Role of Constraint: Inactive Ants Are Corpulent and May Be Young and/or Selfish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About