Cuticular hydrocarbon profiles differ between ant body parts: implications for communication and our understanding of CHC diffusion

Insect cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) serve as communication signals and protect against desiccation. They form complex blends of up to 150 different compounds. Due to differences in molecular packing, CHC classes differ in melting point. Communication is especially important in social insects like ants, which use CHCs to communicate within the colony and to recognize nestmates. Nestmate recognition models often assume a homogenous colony odour, where CHCs are collected, mixed and re-distributed in the postpharyngeal gland (PPG). Via diffusion, recognition cues should evenly spread over the body surface. Hence, CHC composition should be similar across body parts and in the PPG. To test this, we compared CHC composition among whole-body extracts, PPG, legs, thorax and gaster, across 17 ant species from three genera. Quantitative CHC composition differed between body parts, with consistent patterns across species and CHC classes. Early-melting CHC classes were most abundant in the PPG. In contrast, whole body, gaster, thorax and legs had increasing proportions of CHC classes with higher melting points. Intra-individual CHC variation was highest for rather solid, late-melting CHC classes, suggesting that CHCs differ in their diffusion rates across the body surface. Our results show that body parts strongly differ in CHC composition, either being rich in rather solid, late-melting or rather liquid, early-melting CHCs. This implies that recognition cues are not homogenously present across the insect body. However, the unequal diffusion of different CHCs represents a biophysical mechanism that enables caste differences despite continuous CHC exchange among colony members.

Insect societies fight back: the evolution of defensive traits against social parasites

Insect societies face many social parasites that exploit their altruistic behaviours or their resources. Due to the fitness costs these social parasites incur, hosts have evolved various behavioural, chemical, architectural and morphological defence traits. Similar to bacteria infecting multicellular hosts, social parasites have to successfully go through several steps to exploit their hosts. Here, we review how social insects try to interrupt this sequence of events. They can avoid parasite contact by choosing to nest in parasite-free locales or evade attacks by adapting their colony structure. Once social parasites attack, hosts attempt to detect them, which can be facilitated by adjustments in colony odour. If social parasites enter the nest, hosts can either aggressively defend their colony or take their young and flee. Nest structures are often shaped to prevent social parasite invasion or to safeguard host resources. Finally, if social parasites successfully establish themselves in host nests, hosts can rebel by killing the parasite brood or by reproducing in the parasites' presence. Hosts of social parasites can therefore develop multiple traits, leading to the evolution of complex defence portfolios of co-dependent traits. Social parasites can respond to these multi-level defences with counter-adaptations, potentially leading to geographical mosaics of coevolution. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue ‘Evolution of pathogen and parasite avoidance behaviours’.

Speed and accuracy in nest-mate recognition: a hover wasp prioritizes face recognition over colony odour cues to minimize intrusion by outsiders

Social insects have evolved sophisticated recognition systems enabling them to accept nest-mates but reject alien conspecifics. In the social wasp, Liostenogaster flavolineata (Stenogastrinae), individuals differ in their cuticular hydrocarbon profiles according to colony membership; each female also possesses a unique (visual) facial pattern. This species represents a unique model to understand how vision and olfaction are integrated and the extent to which wasps prioritize one channel over the other to discriminate aliens and nest-mates. Liostenogaster flavolineata females are able to discriminate between alien and nest-mate females using facial patterns or chemical cues in isolation. However, the two sensory modalities are not equally efficient in the discrimination of ‘friend’ from ‘foe’. Visual cues induce an increased number of erroneous attacks on nest-mates (false alarms), but such attacks are quickly aborted and never result in serious injury. Odour cues, presented in isolation, result in an increased number of misses: erroneous acceptances of outsiders. Interestingly, wasps take the relative efficiencies of the two sensory modalities into account when making rapid decisions about colony membership of an individual: chemical profiles are entirely ignored when the visual and chemical stimuli are presented together. Thus, wasps adopt a strategy to ‘err on the safe side’ by memorizing individual faces to recognize colony members, and disregarding odour cues to minimize the risk of intrusion from colony outsiders.

Nice to kin and nasty to non-kin: revisiting Hamilton's early insights on eusociality

When helping behaviour is costly, Hamiltonian logic implies that animals need to direct helpful acts towards kin, so that indirect fitness benefits justify the costs. We revisit inferences about nepotism and aggression in Hamilton's 1964 paper to argue that he overestimated the general significance of nepotism, but that other issues that he raised continue to suggest novel research agendas today. We now know that nepotism in eusocial insects is rare, because variation in genetic recognition cues is insufficient. A lower proportion of individuals breeding and larger clutch sizes selecting for a more uniform colony odour may explain this. Irreversible worker sterility can induce both the fiercest possible aggression and the highest likelihood of helping random distant kin, but these Hamiltonian contentions still await large-scale testing in social animals.

Chemical Integration of Myrmecophilous Guests inAphaenogasterAnt Nests

Social insect nests provide a safe and favourable shelter to many guests and parasites. InAphaenogaster senilisnests many guests are tolerated. Among them we studied the chemical integration of two myrmecophile beetles,Sternocoelis hispanus(Coleoptera: Histeridae) andChitosa 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.Sternocoelisare always adopted in other conspecific colonies ofA. seniliswith different delays. They are adopted in the twin speciesA. ibericabut never inA. simonelliiorA. 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 ofSternocoelisis the result of a coevolution withA. seniliswith a possible cleaning symbiosis.

Nest-mate recognition template of guard honeybees ( Apis mellifera ) is modified by wax comb transfer

In recognition, discriminators use sensory information to make decisions. For example, honeybee ( Apis mellifera ) entrance guards discriminate between nest-mates and intruders by comparing their odours with a template of the colony odour. Comb wax plays a major role in honeybee recognition. We measured the rejection rates of nest-mate and non-nest-mate worker bees by entrance guards before and after a unidirectional transfer of wax comb from a ‘comb donor’ hive to a ‘comb receiver’ hive. Our results showed a significant effect that occurred in one direction. Guards in the comb receiver hive became more accepting of non-nest-mates from the comb donor hive (rejection decreased from 70 to 47%); however, guards in the comb donor hive did not become more accepting of bees from the comb receiver hive. These data strongly support the hypothesis that the transfer of wax comb increases the acceptance of non-nest-mates not by changing the odour of the bees, but by changing the template used by guards.