Lack of evidence for nepotism by workers tending queens of the polygynous termite Nasutitermes corniger

Atkinson, Lynn; Teschendorf, Greg; Adams, Eldridge S.

doi:10.1007/s00265-007-0506-z

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In colonies of C. secundus that arise from the fusion of two colonies, termites prefer to cooperate and interact exclusively with their relatives during unfavorable conditions (i.e., food shortages) (Korb 2006). In contrast, no evidence of nepotism has been observed in multiple-queen colonies of N. corniger in terms of the care provided to related and unrelated queens by workers (Atkinson et al 2008). Kinbiased foraging has been reported in polygamous colonies of Schedorhinotermes lamanianus; workers were grouped into foraging parties based on kinship (Kaib et al 1996).…”

Section: Kin Recognition and Nepotismmentioning

confidence: 92%

Communication and Social Regulation in Termites

Bagnères

Hanus

2015

Social Recognition in Invertebrates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communication and social regulation are among the distinguishing features of termites: they are part of all basic aspects of termite biology, from ontogeny and caste differentiation to social behavior and cooperation. As in other highly social taxa, communication in termites predominantly relies on a complex network of chemical signals, which are complemented by vibration-based signals. In contrast to other social taxa, the role of visual cues is negligible. In this chapter, we review the recent literature on the different components that make up termite communication and social regulation systems by tracing termite evolution and examining the role played by different factors, such as sex and caste, and different behaviors, such as those related to defense, nestmate recognition, egg and brood care, foraging, and nest building, among others. The main characteristics of termites are compared to those of other social insects in the introduction. In the first section, we review the most important researches on termite communication and social regulation that are related to social activities in the basal phylogenetic lineages, and in the Termitidae (higher termites), the most advanced and diversified family. The abundant literature on the best studied genera, Reticulitermes, Coptotermes, and Heterotermes, which are considered for the purposes of this chapter to be intermediate termites, is reviewed and discussed separately in the second section. By using this approach, we seek to describe communication and social regulation systems in basal and primitive termites and illustrate how they have evolved to become more complex in intermediate and higher termites.

show abstract

Section: Kin Recognition and Nepotismmentioning

confidence: 92%

Communication and Social Regulation in Termites

Bagnères

Hanus

2015

Social Recognition in Invertebrates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only difference with the ants, bees and wasps is that males have similarly long lifespans to queens and that mating continues throughout life. Exceptions to this rule may occur in evolutionarily derived termite lineages where multiple breeders are sometimes found (Thorne 1983(Thorne , 1985Roisin 1987;Darlington 1988;Atkinson & Adams 1997;Thompson & Hebert 1998;Brandl et al 2001;Hacker et al 2005;Atkinson et al 2008), but no cases of effective re-mating promiscuity followed by successful colony continuation appear to have been documented with genetic markers. Issues of matechoice and sexual selection during swarming (e.g.…”

Section: Evidence For Ancestral Lifetime Monogamy In Eusocial Lineagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This appears consistent with the data as multiple breeders, although reported from tens of termite species, are almost always a rare and facultative phenomenon at the population level (Thorne 1985;Roisin 1987). Given these interesting differences between the ants and the termites, it would be of paramount importance to critically evaluate the sparse records on multiple breeders in colonies of the higher termites (Thorne 1983(Thorne , 1985Roisin 1987;Darlington 1988;Atkinson & Adams 1997;Thompson & Hebert 1998;Brandl et al 2001;Hacker et al 2005;Atkinson et al 2008) to ascertain that: 1. They are derived from unrelated co-founders for each of the sexes, rather than being secondary reproductives produced by a single founding pair; 2.…”

Section: Predictions Of the Monogamy Window Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality

Boomsma

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

335

378

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All evidence currently available indicates that obligatory sterile eusocial castes only arose via the association of lifetime monogamous parents and offspring. This is consistent with Hamilton's rule (br s . r o c), but implies that relatedness cancels out of the equation because average relatedness to siblings (r s ) and offspring (r o ) are both predictably 0.5. This equality implies that any infinitesimally small benefit of helping at the maternal nest (b), relative to the cost in personal reproduction (c) that persists throughout the lifespan of entire cohorts of helpers suffices to establish permanent eusociality, so that group benefits can increase gradually during, but mostly after the transition. The monogamy window can be conceptualized as a singularity comparable with the single zygote commitment of gametes in eukaryotes. The increase of colony size in ants, bees, wasps and termites is thus analogous to the evolution of multicellularity. Focusing on lifetime monogamy as a universal precondition for the evolution of obligate eusociality simplifies the theory and may help to resolve controversies about levels of selection and targets of adaptation. The monogamy window underlines that cooperative breeding and eusociality are different domains of social evolution, characterized by different sectors of parameter space for Hamilton's rule.

show abstract

Section: Kin Recognition and Nepotismmentioning

confidence: 99%