| Literature DB >> 22476194 |
Tobias Pamminger1, Inon Scharf, Pleuni S Pennings, Susanne Foitzik.
Abstract
Slave-making ants reduce the fitness of surrounding host colonies through regular raids, causing the loss of brood and frequently queen and worker death. Consequently, hosts developed defenses against slave raids such as specific recognition and aggression toward social parasites, and indeed, we show that host ants react more aggressively toward slavemakers than toward nonparasitic competitors. Permanent behavioral defenses can be costly, and if social parasite impact varies in time and space, inducible defenses, which are only expressed after slavemaker detection, can be adaptive. We demonstrate for the first time an induced defense against slave-making ants: Cues from the slavemaker Protomognathus americanus caused an unspecific but long-lasting behavioral response in Temnothorax host ants. A 5-min within-nest encounter with a dead slavemaker raised the aggression level in T. longispinosus host colonies. Contrarily, encounters with nonparasitic competitors did not elicit aggressive responses toward non-nestmates. Increased aggression can be adaptive if a slavemaker encounter reliably indicates a forthcoming attack and if aggression increases postraid survival. Host aggression was elevated over 3 days, showing the ability of host ants to remember parasite encounters. The response disappeared after 2 weeks, possibly because by then the benefits of increased aggression counterbalance potential costs associated with it.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22476194 PMCID: PMC3071747 DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Ecol ISSN: 1045-2249 Impact factor: 2.671
Figure 1The experimental setup, demonstrating the encounter sequence of the 3 different treatments and the control during the experimental cycles. “NNC” stands for a non-nestmate Temnothorax longispinosus conspecific; “SM” stands for a slave-making worker of the species Protomognathus americanus and “CGS” stands for congeneric nonparasitic species (Temnothorax curvispinosus). First, all treatments were exposed to non-nestmate conspecifics to evaluate the base aggression of each colony. Second, treatments 1 and 2 were exposed to a slave-making worker, representing a slavemaker scout. Treatment 3 was exposed to a congeneric species, and the control was again confronted with a non-nestmate conspecific. In order to test whether an encounter with a slave-making worker induces elevated aggression, treatments 1 and 2 were exposed to a non-nestmate conspecific and again to a slave-making worker. Treatment 3 and the control investigate whether high aggression is induced by other stimuli (non-nestmate conspecific and a congeneric species). The last cycle aims at estimating the duration of the induced aggression. In addition, the encounter sequence of a raiding event, consisting of the scouting phase (cycle 2) and the raiding event (cycle 3), from the perspective of a host colony, is presented.
Figure 2Mean aggression per treatment and cycle. Control: circles; treatment 1: triangles (upwards); treatment 2: diamonds; and treatment 3: triangles (downwards). Non-nestmate Temnothorax longispinosus opponent (non-nestmate conspecific, NNC) (gray), slave-making worker of the species Protomognathus americanus (slavemaker, SM) (black), and T. curvispinosus (congeneric species, CGS) (dark gray). Cycle 2, 3, and 4 took place 3, 6, and 20 days after cycle 1, respectively. Means ± 1 standard error are presented.