Sensory and cognitive adaptations to social living in insect societies

Wenseleers, Tom; Zweden, Jelle S. van

doi:10.1073/pnas.1707141114

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, a distinct group of malespecific ORs showed a significant sensitivity to CHCs, indicating that these not only regulate social interactions between female ants, but also between sexual partners. This finding is in line with studies suggesting that CHCs are used in sexual communication in social hymenoptera (14) and solitary insects [e.g., Drosophila (15)]. Slone et al (7) confirm recent findings that there are no absolute odor-coding boundaries for ant-OR subfamilies in relation to pheromone and nonpheromone stimuli (Fig.…”

Section: Chcs Are Not Uniquely Detected By the 9-exon Or Gene Subfamilysupporting

confidence: 89%

Decoding ants’ olfactory system sheds light on the evolution of social communication

d’Ettorre

Deisig

Sandoz

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Chcs Are Not Uniquely Detected By the 9-exon Or Gene Subfamilysupporting

confidence: 89%

Decoding ants’ olfactory system sheds light on the evolution of social communication

d’Ettorre

Deisig

Sandoz

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, comparative analyses revealed that among halictid bees, eusocial species have more elaborate sensorial machinery linked to chemical communication than solitary species (Wittwer et al 2017). There is also evidence suggesting that odor profiles and other aspects of signal complexity may also be more elaborate in eusocial compared to solitary species (Leonhardt et al 2016;Wenseleers and Zweden 2017). Similar positive relationships between measures of social and communicative complexity have been reported for birds (Krams et al 2012;Leighton 2017) and mammals (Pollard and Blumstein 2012;Bouchet et al 2013) and have recently been reviewed elsewhere (Pollard and Blumstein 2012;Peckre et al 2019, topical collection on Social complexity; see also Pika 2017).…”

Section: Evolutionary Transitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for studying social complexity

Kappeler

2019

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

225

243

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social complexity has been one of the recent emerging topics in the study of animal and human societies, but the concept remains both poorly defined and understood. In this paper, I critically review definitions and studies of social complexity in invertebrate and vertebrate societies, arguing that the concept is being used inconsistently in studies of vertebrate sociality. Group size and cohesion define one cornerstone of social complexity, but the nature and patterning of social interactions contribute more to interspecific variation in social complexity in species with individual recognition and repeated interactions. Humans provide the only example where many other unique criteria are used, and they are the only species for which intraspecific variation in social complexity has been studied in detail. While there is agreement that complex patterns emerge at the group level as a result of simple interactions and as a result of cognitive abilities, there is consensus neither on their relative importance nor on the role of specific cognitive abilities in different lineages. Moreover, aspects of reproduction and parental care have also been invoked to characterize levels of social complexity, so that no single comprehensive measure is readily available. Because even fundamental components of social complexity are difficult to compare across studies and species because of inconsistent definitions and operationalization of key social traits, I define and characterize social organization, social structure, mating system, and care system as distinct components of a social system. Based on this framework, I outline how different aspects of the evolution of social complexity are being studied and suggest questions for future research. Significance statement Animal and human societies differ in social complexity, i.e., the number and association patterns of group members as well as the nature and patterning of their social relationships, but the dimensions of social complexity, the processes that generate it, the selective forces that engender different levels of social complexity, and the evolutionary consequences of this variation remain to be comprehensively understood. Here, I offer a conceptual framework for the systematic and comparative studies of social complexity by defining its main components as well as their proximate and ultimate relationships.

show abstract

“…The R package phytools [ 63 ] was used to create a visual representation of the evolution of recombination rates in the order Hymenoptera by estimating ancestral states using fastAnc() function, based on their phylogeny [ 60 , 72 – 83 ] and focusing on species with available genome-wide recombination rate estimates [ 18 – 23 , 34 , 40 , 61 , 62 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recombination mapping of the Brazilian stingless bee Frieseomelitta varia confirms high recombination rates in social hymenoptera

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Meiotic recombination is a fundamental genetic process that shuffles allele combinations and promotes accurate segregation of chromosomes. Analyses of the ubiquitous variation of recombination rates within and across species suggest that recombination is evolving adaptively. All studied insects with advanced eusociality have shown exceptionally high recombination rates, which may represent a prominent case of adaptive evolution of recombination. However, our understanding of the relationship between social evolution and recombination rates is incomplete, partly due to lacking empirical data. Here, we present a linkage map of the monandrous, advanced eusocial Brazilian stingless bee, Frieseomelitta varia, providing the first recombination analysis in the diverse Meliponini (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Results Our linkage map includes 1417 markers in 19 linkage groups. This map spans approximately 2580 centimorgans, and comparisons to the physical genome assembly indicate that it covers more than 75 % of the 275 Megabasepairs (Mbp) F. varia genome. Thus, our study results in a genome-wide recombination rate estimate of 9.3–12.5 centimorgan per Mbp. This value is higher than estimates from nonsocial insects and comparable to other highly social species, although it does not support our prediction that monandry and strong queen-worker caste divergence of F. varia lead to even higher recombination rates than other advanced eusocial species. Conclusions Our study expands the association between elevated recombination and sociality in the order Hymenoptera and strengthens the support for the hypothesis that advanced social evolution in hymenopteran insects invariably selects for high genomic recombination rates.

show abstract

Sensory and cognitive adaptations to social living in insect societies

Cited by 18 publications

References 23 publications

Decoding ants’ olfactory system sheds light on the evolution of social communication

Decoding ants’ olfactory system sheds light on the evolution of social communication

A framework for studying social complexity

Recombination mapping of the Brazilian stingless bee Frieseomelitta varia confirms high recombination rates in social hymenoptera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About