Interindividual variability in social insects – proximate causes and ultimate consequences

Abstract

Individuals within social groups often show consistent differences in behaviour across time and context. Such interindividual differences and the evolutionary challenge they present have recently generated considerable interest. Social insects provide some of the most familiar and spectacular examples of social groups with large interindividual differences. Investigating these within-group differences has a long research tradition, and behavioural variability among the workers of a colony is increasingly regarded as fundamental for a key feature of social insects: division of labour. The goal of this review is to illustrate what we know about both the proximate mechanisms underlying behavioural variability among the workers of a colony and its ultimate consequences; and to highlight the many open questions in this research field. We begin by reviewing the literature on mechanisms that potentially introduce, maintain, and adjust the behavioural differentiation among workers. We highlight the fact that so far, most studies have focused on behavioural variability based on genetic variability, provided by e.g. multiple mating of the queen, while other mechanisms that may be responsible for the behavioural differentiation among workers have been largely neglected. These include maturational, nutritional and environmental influences. We further discuss how feedback provided by the social environment and learning and experience of adult workers provides potent and little-explored sources of differentiation. In a second part, we address what is known about the potential benefits and costs of increased behavioural variability within the workers of a colony. We argue that all studies documenting a benefit of variability so far have done so by manipulating genetic variability, and that a direct test of the effect of behavioural variability on colony productivity has yet to be provided. We emphasize that the costs associated with interindividual variability have been largely overlooked, and that a better knowledge of the cost/benefit balance of behavioural variability is crucial for our understanding of the evolution of the mechanisms underlying the social organization of insect societies. We conclude by highlighting what we believe to be promising but little-explored avenues for future research on how within-colony variability has evolved and is maintained. We emphasize the need for comparative studies and point out that, so far, most studies on interindividual variability have focused on variability in individual response thresholds, while the significance of variability in other parameters of individual response, such as probability and intensity of the response, has been largely overlooked. We propose that these parameters have important consequences for the colony response. Much more research is needed to understand if and how interindividual variability is modulated in order to benefit division of labour, homeostasis and ultimately colony fitness in social insects.

RETRACTED: Animal personality aligns task specialization and task proficiency in a spider society

“…Various models have been developed to explain this process in social insects, many invoking interindividual variation in responsiveness to task-related stimuli (14,15). Response-threshold variation and subsequent task differentiation may be mediated by a multitude of mechanisms including, but not limited to, genotype, gene expression, hormonal and other physiological changes, learning and early life experience, spatial heterogeneity, and group size (16).…”

Group personality during collective decision-making: a multi-level approach

“…It is important to shed some light on the role of genetic determinism. For example, similar to the role of the 'foraging gene' observed in other insect species [21], we could potentially find the genetic origins of personality implied in the cockroach aggregation dynamics. However, we cannot exclude the epigenetic factors, as experience influences adult behaviour [63], and nutritional intake during larval stages affects the adult size, activity and mobility rates [47].…”

“…Second, we should expect a homogenization of behavioural profiles owing to the strong genetic relatedness between tested individuals (see §2). Third, as age and the associated life history and experience generate interindividual behavioural variability [21], only adult males (+ four months) were used in our experiments. Moreover, knowing that activity and mobility rates are affected by food deprivation [47], all individuals were fed ad libitum for 48 h before the experiments.…”

Getting to the start line: how bumblebees and honeybees are visually guided towards their first floral contact

“…Individual differences in the behaviour of eusocial insects are pronounced and their origins are beginning to be understood (Jeanne, 1988;Jeanson and Weidenmüller, 2013). For instance, task specialization is seen in honeybees, and a colony even comprises both ''employed'' and ''unemployed'' foragers (Seeley, 1995).…”