Chemical Integration of Myrmecophilous Guests inAphaenogasterAnt Nests

Abstract

Social insect nests provide a safe and favourable shelter to many guests and parasites. In Aphaenogaster senilis nests many guests are tolerated. Among them we studied the chemical integration of two myrmecophile beetles, Sternocoelis hispanus (Coleoptera: Histeridae) and Chitosa nigrita (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), and a silverfish. Silverfishes bear low quantities of the host hydrocarbons (chemical insignificance), acquired probably passively, and they do not match the colony odour. Both beetle species use chemical mimicry to be accepted; they have the same specific cuticular hydrocarbon profile as their host. They also match the ant colony odour, but they keep some specificity and can be recognised by the ants as a different element. Sternocoelis are always adopted in other conspecific colonies of A. senilis with different delays. They are adopted in the twin species A. iberica but never in A. simonellii or A. subterranea. They are readopted easily into their mother colony after an isolation of different durations until one month. After isolation they keep their hydrocarbons quantity, showing that they are able to synthesize them. Nevertheless, their profile diverges from the host colony, indicating that they adjust it in contact with the hosts. This had never been demonstrated before in myrmecophile beetles. We suggest that the chemical mimicry of Sternocoelis is the result of a coevolution with A. senilis with a possible cleaning symbiosis.

Chemical and behavioral integration of army ant-associated rove beetles – a comparison between specialists and generalists

“…Imperfect CHC mimicry in myrmecophile-ant systems is common, but the ultimate and proximate mechanisms behind a weak chemical host resemblance mostly remain speculative. Carrying only small quantities of CHCs compared to host ants has often been suggested to hamper recognition due to an inability of host ants to detect these cues (chemical insignificance sensu [ 19 ]; chemical hiding sensu [ 85 ]) (e.g., woodlice/mites/phorid flies: [ 91 ]; syrphid flies: [ 92 ]; silverfish: [ 93 ]). On the contrary, the presence of only a few host CHCs in low quantities with slight compositional differences to the host has been suggested as a strategy of two parasitoid wasps to be detected by host ants [ 94 ].…”

“…Besides CHC acquisition, an additional de novo synthesis of certain key compounds is likewise possible [ 18 , 19 , 96 ]. Experimental designs to test for de novo synthesis of mimetic cues include CHC extractions of myrmecophiles without previous host contact [ 102 – 104 ] and CHC extractions of myrmecophiles that were experimentally separated from host ants for an extended period of time [ 28 , 41 , 58 , 93 ]. These experiments could be done with Tetradonia beetles, but carrying them out with Wasmannian mimics is difficult for two reasons.…”

Reactions by army ant workers to nestmates having had contact with sympatric ant species

“…obs.). Indeed, in natural conditions, the raided workers evacuate their nests and E. burchellii workers gather only the brood and callow workers that have not yet acquired the CCs responsible for the colony odour [16]; contact with ''old'' raided workers is extremely rare. Moreover, for species with small colonies, the number of raiding army ant workers is so great that the CC transfer is ''diluted'' and thus cannot become a defence mechanism.…”

Interspecific Eavesdropping on Ant Chemical Communication

“…References organized by numbers and separated by either a comma, to indicate the paper is referring to species from different families, or by a semicolon when the paper cited is referring to a new type (e.g., fly, ant, etc.). [1] Hertel andColli, 1998, [2] Pérez-Lachaud et al, 2017, [3] Staverløkk and Ødegaard, 2016, [4] Durán and van Achterberg, 2011, [5] Philpott, 2012, [6] Sharma andFadamiro, 2013, [7] Witte et al, 2010, [8] Uribe et al, 2016, [9] Fernández-Marín et al, 2006, [10] Brown et al, 2017, [11] Wing, 1983 Allan et al, 1996, [13] Rettenmeyer et al, 2011 Komatsu, 2016, [15] Akino, 2002 Akre and Rettenmeyer, 1968, [17] Cammaerts et al, 1990, [18] Cazier and Mortenson, 1965 Dejean and Beugnon, 1996, [20] Akre et al, 1988, [21] Geiselhardt et al, 2007, [22] Schönrogge et al, 2008, [23] Mello-Leitão, 1923 Akre et al, 1973, [25] Dodd, 1912, [26] Erthal and Tonhasca, 2001, [27] Lenoir et al, 2012, [28] Bhatkar, 1982 Henderson and Akre, 1986, [30] Hölldobler and Kwapich, 2017, [31] Maschwitz et al, 1988, [32] Jackson et al, 2008, [33] Powell et al, 2014, [34] Silveira-Guido et al, 1973, [35] D'Ettorre and Heinze, 2001 Henderson and Jeanne, 1990, [37] Henning, 1983, [38] Moser, 1964, [39] Moser, 1967, [40] Phillips et al, 2017, [41] Hölldobler, 1967 an ant colony, thus they provide a weakness in colony defense due to the chemical mimicry or camouflage strategies used by nest associates. ...…”