Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2018 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 3

Effects of genetic relatedness, spatial distance, and context on intraspecific aggression in the red wood ant Formica pratensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Pages
297–306
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our results showed that the monodomous colonies were highly aggressive to all neighboringor nonneighboring conspecifics in nature irrespective of the spatial distance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the present study, we tested the level of aggression of monodomous and polydomous colonies of the wood ant Formicapratensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with a behavioral assay in nature and laboratory conditions to see if the ants from neighboringcolonies are more tolerant or more aggressive to each other than those from greater distances.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The polydomous colony showed no aggression towardsneighboring conspecifics but the level of aggression increased with increasing spatial distance between the colonies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our results showed that the monodomous colonies were highly aggressive to all neighboringor nonneighboring conspecifics in nature irrespective of the spatial distance.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the present study, we tested the level of aggression of monodomous and polydomous colonies of the wood ant Formicapratensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with a behavioral assay in nature and laboratory conditions to see if the ants from neighboringcolonies are more tolerant or more aggressive to each other than those from greater distances. We also tested how context (nature andlaboratory conditions) affected aggression. Our results showed that the monodomous colonies were highly aggressive to all neighboringor nonneighboring conspecifics in nature irrespective of the spatial distance. The polydomous colony showed no aggression towardsneighboring conspecifics but the level of aggression increased with increasing spatial distance between the colonies. The level of aggressionof tested colonies in laboratory conditions was significantly low, irrespective of whether they were monodomous or polydomous,indicating that aggression is context dependent. A DNA barcoding technique based on mitochondrial COI gene sequencing was appliedto determine the genetic relatedness between the colonies. The results of the genetic analysis, in combination with results of behavioralassays, revealed that aggression behavior of the polydomous colony was affected by both the genetic relatedness and the spatial distancebetween the colonies while there was no clear separation of effects of genetic relatedness and spatial distance on aggression in themonodomous colonies.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, V., ÇAMLITEPE, Y. (2022). Effects of genetic relatedness, spatial distance, and context on intraspecific aggression in the red wood ant Formica pratensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 3, 297–306. https://ajindex.com/articles/616088

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Aktac N, Camlitepe Y, Aras A, Kiran K. (1998) A comparative study on the distribution of Formica rufa group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Turkish Thrace and Anatolia. II. International Congress on Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation of the Balkan Fauna. Bioecco2, 16–20 September 1998;
  2. Ohrid, Macedonia, p. 69. Benedek K, Kóbori OT (2014). ‘Nasty neighbor’ effect in Formica pratensis Retz. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). North-West J Zool 10: 245-250.
  3. Bennett B (1989). Nestmate recognition systems in a monogynouse polygynous species pair of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). I. Worker and queen derived cues. Sociobiology 16: 121-139.
  4. Beye M, Neumann P, Chapuisat M, Pamilo P, Moritz RFA (1998). Nestmate recognition and the genetic relatedness of nests in the ant Formica pratensis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43: 67-72. Bos N, d’Ettorre P (2012). Recognition of social identity in ants. Front Psychol 3: 1-6.
  5. Czechowski W (1975). Bionomics of Formica (Coptoformica) pressilabris Nyl. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Annales Zoologici 33: 103-125.
  6. Czechowski W (1996) Colonies of hybrids and mixed colonies; interspecific nest takeover in wood ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Memorabilia Zoologica 50: 1-116.
  7. Czechowski W, Radchenko A, Czechowska W, Vepsäläinen K (2012). The Ants of Poland with Reference to the Myrmecofauna of Europe. Warsaw, Poland: Museum and Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Natura optima dux Foundation, pp. 496. Chen JSC, Nonacs P (2000). Nestmate recognition and intraspecific aggression based on environmental cues in Argentine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 93: 1333- 1337. Chapuisat M, Bernasconi C, Hoehn S, Reuter M (2005). Nestmate recognition in the unicolonial ant Formica paralugubris. Behav Ecol 16: 15-19.
  8. Couvillon MJ, Segers FHID, Cooper-Bownan R, Truslove G, Nascimiento DL, Nascimiento FS, Ratnieks FSL (2013). Context affects nestmate recognition errors in honey bees and stingless bees. J Exp Biol 216: 3055-3061.
  9. Felsenstein J (1985). Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783-791.
  10. Foitzik S, Sturm H, Pusch K, d’Ettorre P, Heinze J (2007). Nestmate recognition and intraspecific chemical and genetic variation in Temnothorax ants. Anim Behav 73: 999-1007.
  11. Gamboa GJ, Reeve HK, Holmes WG (1991). Conceptual issues and methodology in kin-recognition research: a critical discussion. Ethology 88: 109-127.
  12. Gordon DM (1989). Ants distinguish neighbors from strangers. Oecologia 81: