The curious case of antennating ants telling each other where to go

Antennation

A blog post highlighting the article by S. Popp, P. Buckham-Bonnett, S.E.F. Evison, E.J.H. Robinson and T.J. Czaczkes in Insectes Sociaux

Written by Tomer Czaczkes and Sophie Evison

Anyone who has spent a few minutes watching ants running along a trail will have noticed that when two ants meet, they often interact for a second or two. It seems obvious to anyone watching that some sort of information transfer is occurring. But what could they be communicating? One of the most tempting hypotheses is that the returning ant is telling the outgoing ant where to go: “take the next left to a great patch of aphids!” in the way that the honey bee waggle dance conveys information about the location of food patches to other workers. However, as inviting as this hypothesis is, multiple investigations over the centuries have found no evidence to support an antennal language in ants. The widely accepted view is summed up by Hölldobler and Wilson in their bible of myrmecology (1990): “‘ants antennate nestmates in order to smell them, not to inform them’’.

However, from the mid 1990s, a Russian scientist named Zhanna Reznikova has been researching the communication skills and numerical competency of wood ants (family: Formicidae). Reznikova and colleagues report finding astounding physical communication abilities: not only could ants communicate a complex series of turns to nestmates by physical contact, they could also encode numbers (i.e. take the 27th turn to the food”) (Reznikova and Ryabko 1994). Sophie Evison first heard about this during her doctoral studies from Reznikova herself, at a Central European Workshop on Myrmecology. Of course, she had to try this herself, so using the ants Evison had available at the time – Lasius niger – she carried out a (fairly rudimentary) replication of Reznikova’s experiment. Evison’s experiment simply tested whether returning L. niger foragers could tell outgoing foragers the correct direction to go at an upcoming T-maze. Amazingly, initial experiments appeared to show that these ants were communicating a form of directional information about a T shaped maze simply via antennation, with no other cues. However, to be candid, these results had similar impact to those of Reznikova’s, and the findings only ever appeared in Evison’s doctoral thesis.

Reznikova’s discoveries are incredible. Why were they not picked up? Simply put, no one believed them. However, incredulity is not a basis for scientific discourse. Many incredible scientific findings – in both the current and original meaning of the word – have gone on to be proven right, and changed the face of science forever. It seems incredible that we live on a spherical ball of rock, but it is true. Although before it was widely accepted, this fact had to be independently verified by repeated observations. The appropriate response from a modern but incredulous scientific community should be replication, not dismissal.

Why then did no one try to replicate these results? Why didn’t we, in our recent Insectes Sociaux study, try to replicate it exactly? The answer is simple: No incentives. Replication – the backbone of the scientific method – has no career rewards – especially for low traction ideas. We all remember the STAP cell fiasco, but do you remember who tried to replicate it and failed? Indeed, when we take into account the time lost performing such replications, they can reasonably be considered harmful to a career. This is especially true in the specific Reznikova case, as their method requires weeks of patient observation to define stable working ‘teams’ before tests can even begin.

Our recent study in Insectes Sociaux has convinced us that, at least in two Lasius species, on-trail physical interactions do not communicate direction, but these are only two species. This increases the burden of proof for such physical communication, but does not rule it out. Of course, even though we set out to find evidence for such communication, we also find the results of Reznikova incredible. And while incredulity alone is not a basis for scientific discourse, it is far from meaningless. The collective intuition of our research community should not be ignored. Perhaps we should be taking a Bayesian approach, adjusting our demands for evidence by our level of incredulity. There an important part of this story that helped to keep our collective investigation going all these years: during a Royal Society event, the artificial intelligence expert Donald Michie mentioned to Elva Robinson that he had spent some time with Reznikova, and was very interested by her results. He had planned to investigate the claims further, but tragically lost his life in a car accident. Donald’s perspective on the work of Reznikova was important; it provided an externally driven impetus to resolve our contrasting findings.

So what would it take to convince us of the Reznikova findings? We propose replication by an unaffiliated research team, with meticulous video documentation. But let’s face it – for the reasons stated above, we don’t think this is going to happen. We hope to be proven wrong.

 

 

Staying close to home

Highlighting the article written by A. Friedel, R. J. Paxton, A. Soro (2017) in Insectes Sociaux

Written by Insectes Sociaux Editor-in-Chief, Michael Breed (michael.breed@colorado.edu)

In this issue of Insectes Sociaux, Friedel et al. (2017) report on their investigations of population structure of a eusocial sweat bee, Lasioglossum malachurum. Their fascinating study exemplifies the complex choices that dispersing animals face. An animal that moves far from its birth location encounters unknown arrays of predators, uncertainty in finding a suitable destination habitat, and the possibility that all of the good habitat space in their path is already occupied. On the other hand, staying close to home raises the likelihood of competing with close relatives as well as inheriting any diseases or parasites that beset the previous generation.

For animals living in aggregations some challenges may be amplified. In addition to high potential for competition with close relatives, disease and parasite problems are compounded, as many possible hosts live in close proximity to one another. Aggregations may form via philopatry, in which animals establish nests close to their natal nest, which creates potential questions about social evolution. If more than one individual lives in a nest, as is the case in the closely related Lasioglossum zephyrum, Then the mechanisms of social recognition that maintain high levels of familial relationship within each nest may break down. High genetic similarity among nearby colonies, as in Lasioglossum malachurum, may blur kin distinctions, setting up possible difficulties for kin-selection explanations of the evolution of a worker caste. Given these intriguing contradictions between advantages in settling near the natal location and dispersing further, this investigation (Friedel et al. 2017) of genetic structure is particularly interesting and timely.

Friedel et al. (2017) specifically test the hypothesis that when gynes (potential queens) search for a new nesting site they are likely to choose a location near their natal nest. By using microsatellite markers to investigate genetic similarity they were able to determine that bees in neighboring nests have higher degrees of genetic similarity than bees from more distant nests within the same aggregation. They found in three of four aggregations studied that bees from very close nests were more genetically similar than expected if random dispersal had taken place. In other words, very short range dispersal seems to have resulted in the formation of aggregations of individuals or nests in small pockets within larger expanses of seemingly suitable habitat. Colonies located further apart within each aggregation showed random degrees of genetic similarity. The aggregation in which no population substructure was observed is very large and perhaps older, leading the authors to suggest that founder effects account for small scale genetic similarity within aggregations and that over time immigration of unrelated bees in the aggregation dilutes these effects. This study sets the stage for assessing how population genetic substructure affects social evolution and disease-host relationships.

The halictid bee studied by Friedel et al. (2017) is typical of many eusocial insects, which establish their nests in aggregations of tens, hundreds or even thousands of individual colonies. Aggregated nests are common in many species of halictid sweat bee, in some species of Apidae, such as Apis dorsata, and in some species of the social wasps Polistes, Mischocyttarus, and Ropalidia. We can also look beyond insects to find many interesting behavioral and evolutionary analogies that can be seen in the aggregated nesting of birds, such as oropendolas, Psarocolius spp., and various swallows Hirundo spp., and in mammals such as prairie dogs, Cynomys spp.

The repeated appearance of aggregated nesting across this wide range of taxa raises many interesting evolutionary and behavioral questions. On the surface, if aggregated nests result from limited dispersal from natal sites, this could have major effects on population genetic structure, leading to high levels of genetic similarity among individuals within small sampling areas in the aggregation. As Friedel et al. (2017) point out, this may represent a transitory phase in the development of aggregations across generational time, as long-term movement of unrelated animals into the aggregation may counterbalance the short-term effects of an aggregation having been initiated by a single female and her immediate offspring.

 Reference

A. Friedel, R. J. Paxton, A. Soro (2017) Spatial patterns of relatedness within nesting aggregations of the primitively eusocial sweat bee Lasioglossum malachurum. Insectes Sociaux DOI: 10.1007/s00040-017-0559-6

 

 

 

Do fungus-farming leaf cutter ants smell like fungus?

Figure 1

Superficial view of an Atta bisphaerica leaf-cutting ant nest, in the Brazilian savannah. Photo: Lohan Valadares

A blog post highlighting the article by L. Valaderes and F.S. do Nascimento in Insectes Sociaux

By Lohan Valadares  (@valadareslohan, @lo.han.792)

About 30 million years ago, in the South American savannahs, ants that cultivate fungus have over evolutionary time become the leaf-cutting ants (genera Atta and Acromyrmex). These ants reside in large subterranean nests of the Neotropical region, with galleries and fungus chambers that shelter thousands to millions of individuals, where they farm the fungus Leucoagaricus gongylophorus. The fungus has never been found free-living without the ants, and it is generally accepted that both organisms have co-evolved into an obligate mutualism, which means that one organism cannot live without the other. For the ants, the fungus is priceless as it serves as a rearing site and unique nutritional substrate for brood development. In exchange, the ants protect the fungus against parasites and forage for fresh vegetation, which is used as substrate for fungal growth. Recently, chemical analyses of the fungus gardens of Acromyrmex species have revealed the presence of hydrocarbons, a class of chemical compound found commonly on the cuticle of insects (Viana et al., 2001, Richard et al., 2007). These two species are so intertwined, however, that whether it is the ants or the fungus which are the ultimate producers of these hydrocarbons is not yet clear.

Cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) are of particular importance for social insects, and decades of studies have demonstrated that they are important as nestmate recognition cues. Consequently, variations in these substances have been associated with caste, age, dominance hierarchy, worker subcastes, and developmental stages. Furthermore, the leaves used as the fungus substrate seem to be an important source of CHCs for leaf-cutting ants (Richard et al., 2004, Valadares et al., 2015). This leads us to hypothesise that the intermediate organism in this process – the symbiotic fungus – is actually the one promoting the transference of these substances, or may actually be involved in the synthesis of hydrocarbons itself.

To explore the resemblance between the chemical compounds of both organisms involved in this symbiotic association, we studied the resemblance between the CHC profile of fungal cultivars with those of the ants, focusing on the changes in the CHC composition during the ants’ larval-to-adult moulting in the leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens and its associated fungus. Our main question was: how do the changes in the CHC profile associated with the moulting cycle correlate with the hydrocarbon profile of the fungus cultivated by the ant Atta sexdens? To assess it, we collected pieces of fungal mycelium, and ant larvae, pupae and adult workers from laboratory populations, and soaked them in a solvent to extract their hydrocarbons, which later on were injected into a gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) for separation and identification of hydrocarbons.

Figure 2

An excavated fungus chamber of an Acromyrmex subterraneus leaf-cutting ant nest, in the Brazilian savannah. Photo: Lohan Valadares

Our analyses demonstrated that ant and fungus shared 58% of hydrocarbons, and the rest were all ant-specific hydrocarbons that were absent from the symbiotic fungus. Our comparative analyses revealed a great similarity between the hydrocarbon profiles of larva and fungus, due to the fact that both groups shared mainly highly concentrated linear hydrocarbons. As individuals progressed through developmental stages, the chemical profiles between ant and fungus became increasingly different. As the moulting cycle progressed, the hydrocarbon profile was characterised by a great shift from the ‘less pronounced’ state of the brood’s chemical profile towards a more diverse chemical profile of adult workers comprised of highly concentrated branched hydrocarbons.

Our findings coincide with the observations made for Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants (Vianna et al. 2001, Richard et al. 2007), strengthening the evidence for the intimate relationship between brood and fungus as a variable shaping the hydrocarbon profile of both species. However, because we don’t know in detail how the hydrocarbons are biologically synthesised and transferred between these organisms, it is difficult to interpret whether the ants or the fungus (or even both organisms) are the ones actually synthesising hydrocarbons. However, we believe that our descriptive and comparative analyses indicating such strong resemblances has suggested new exciting opportunities of research tha­t will help us to understand how this co-evolutionary relationship has shaped the chemical profile of both organisms. If we consider the optimistic scenario where the fungus is actually the one to be transferring these compounds to the ants, how does this transference impact colony odour? Do these substances play a role in nestmate recognition? Several questions remain to be answered and hopefully our work has contributed to the journey towards the understanding of the chemo-ecology between leaf-cutting ants and their fungal cultivars.

 

References

Branstetter, M.G., Jesovnik, Aa, Sosa-Calvo, J., Lloyd, M.W., Faircloth, B.G., Brady, S.G., Schultz, T.R. (2017). Dry habitats were crucibles of domestication in the evolution of agriculture. Proceedings Royal Society B. 284: 20170095.

Richard, F.J., Heftz, A., Christides, J.P., Errard, C. (2004) Food influence on colonial recognition and chemical signature between nestmates in the fungus-growing ant Acromyrmex subterraneus subterraneus. J Chem Ecol 14: 9–16

Richard, F.J., Poulsen, M., Hefetz, E.C., Nash, D.R., Boomsma, J.J. (2007). The origin of the chemical profiles of fungal symbionts and their significance for nestmate recognition in Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61(11):1637-1649

Valadares, L., Nascimento, D., Nascimento, F.S. (2015) Foliar substrate affects cuticular hydrocarbon profiles and intraspecific aggression in the leafcutter ant Atta sexdens. Insects 6: 141-151

Viana, A.M., Frézard, A., Malosse, C., Della Lucia, T.M., Errard, C., Lenoir, A. (2001) Colonial recognition of fungus in the fungus-growing ant Acromyrmex subterraneus subterraneus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Chemoecol 11(1): 29-36

Interview with a social insect scientist: Mary Jane West-Eberhard

34315543713_2dc7e3f97a_z

Polistes fuscatus, a representative of Mary Jane West-Eberhard’s favourite genus. Photo: John Brandauer/flickr

IS: Who are you and what do you do?

MJWE: Mary Jane West-Eberhard, retired research scientist, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Retired = working as usual for less pay.

IS: How did you end up researching social insects?

MJWE: The answer started when I was a little kid. My first pet (or so I thought) was a beautiful sweat bee that looked like a jewel. It landed on my arm when I was about nine years old. I thought it liked me. But then it stung me and flew away! That did it for the solitary Hymenoptera. But I liked wasps – they are perky and beautiful. I first paid attention to them when making an insect collection for a 4-H entomology project. Then, in college I wanted to do something on insect behaviour for my honors thesis at the University of Michigan. Henry Townes, a taxonomist of parasitoid Hymenoptera, suggested that I do it on Polistes. It was the dead of winter but I found some hibernating females and put them in a terrarium. They woke up immediately and immediately started to antennate each other and fight. I figured I couldn’t go wrong with those.

IS: What is your favourite social insect and why?

MJWE: My favourite is still Polistes. Every Polistes species has distinctive visible social displays, and they are always active. Seeing a new species always rewards you with something new and interesting. They never disappoint. I have worked on MANY species of wasps. Some, like Mischocyttarus, are very common in the tropics where I have lived, and they have open nests like Polistes. There are many species and I have tried looking at lots of them but they are unbearably dull compared to Polistes.

IS: What is the best moment/discovery in your research so far? What made it so memorable?

MJWE: I guess there are two kinds of excitement – discoveries during fieldwork, and making new connections (having new ideas). Maybe I can get away with giving more than one example, one for each decade of my fieldwork on social insects:

  • [as an undergrad] Seeing a mother cricket, who was caring for her nymphs, lay a tiny egg and then feed it to one of her nymphs! A trophic egg, like those of ants, but never before seen in a cricket.
  • [As a grad student] Seeing some marked Polistes females return to their single-queen natal nest site after hibernation, and start building nests together (the first direct field confirmation of the relatedness aspect of kin selection theory).
  • Discovering the complex dominance displays of Metabolybia queens toward each other, and the displays of workers toward them that indicated worker choice of queens – they actually dominated some of the queens into becoming workers!
  • Finding a nest of Zethus miniatus the very species studied long ago by Ducke in Brazil, famously a group living eumenine wasp used by Wheeler as a model transitional species.
  • Realizing (in the 1980s) that most alternative states considered “genetic polymorphisms” are actually condition-dependent polyphenisms and other kinds of non-genetically determined alternative forms – just like workers and queens. This undermined some assumptions of genetics and, within behaviour studies, ESS game theory, that predominated at the time.

IS: If teaching is part of your work, what courses do you teach? Has your work on social insects helped to shape your teaching?

MJWE: As a grad student I planned to become a college professor. But my job with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute has been a research job; and my husband Bill has taught the courses I might have taught in the places we have lived. But I like to think that the general-scope writing I have done is a kind of teaching – “courses” on the evolution of insect societies, sexual and social selection, and development (including of behaviour) in relation to genetic evolution. I like to think that it helps researchers working on real organisms to see the general significance of their work.

IS: What is the last book you read? Would you recommend it? Why or why not?

MJWE: “Hillbilly Elegy,” by J.D. Vance. I recommend it because it describes some truly forgotten, especially by academics and politicians, elements of US society – their deep problems and why ignorance (including bigotry) is entrenched and difficult to deal with, for those (victims and idealists) who would try to find a way out of it.

IS: Did any one book have a major influence in shaping your career? What was the book and how did it affect you?

MJWE: Mayr 1963, “Animal Species and Evolution.” A grad-student seminar (led by R.D. Alexander) read that book and we critically examined every page – every sentence. The book was mainly about speciation, but it was a summary of organismic evolutionary biology at that time. I still use it for history and references – as a marker of what was understood when I was a student, and what was not.

IS: Outside of science, what are your favourite activities, hobbies or sports?

MJWE: My favourite activity is good conversation. “Good” means intelligent and entertaining (this does not necessarily mean intellectual and can be with small children or people without earphones on airplanes). It means open as well as considerate. Travel. Watching behaviour including of people, and trying to figure out what is going on in different settings, and why. My work and my family have always been my hobbies. Aerobics 3 times a week.

 

IS: If you were on an island and could only bring three things, what would you bring? Why?

MJWE: A flashlight, a bottle of water, and a helicopter. The “why” seems self explanatory.

IS: Who do you think has had the greatest influence on your science career?

MJWE: Richard Alexander, my professor at the University of Michigan. He encouraged critical thinking and independence, and encouraged thinking about the general importance of my discoveries. He didn’t expect his students to work on aspects of his own research. He was bursting with original ideas and always talked about them. He didn’t worry about getting ripped off because he was publishing as fast as he talked.

IS: What advice would you give to a young person hoping to be a social insect researcher in the future?

MJWE: Choose a species or a taxon and resolve to become the world expert on it – to learn everything that is known about it, including classification, physiology, behaviour, evolutionary history. Then do whatever you have the greatest patience for. For example, I have no patience for making apparatus work in a lab. But I can watch animal behaviour for hours and hours without getting bored. Whatever you do, whether it is ecology, or library work, or laboratory experiments, or microscopic studies of morphology, be sure to spend SOME time observing behaviour, because that will give you clues about whatever you are trying to understand.

 

 

Interview with a social insect scientist: Corrie Moreau

Moreau_Rome_2017

IS: Who are you and what do you do?

CSM: I am Dr. Corrie Moreau (@CorrieMoreau), Associate Curator/Professor at the Field Museum of Natural History. I oversee a very large scientific collection and run an active research program using molecular and genomic tools to study the evolution of social insects.

IS: How did you end up researching social insects?

CSM: Since a young age I have always wanted to study ants. Growing up in New Orleans, Louisiana, there were always ants everywhere and they completely fascinated me.

IS: What is your favourite social insect and why?

CSM: Ants! There are so many closely related species that look and behave differently and even distantly related species that have converged on their morphology and behaviors. These differences and similarities provide an excellent system to understand how and why these traits evolve.

IS: What is the best moment/discovery in your research so far? What made it so memorable?

CSM: For me there are two moments in my research so far that have stood out. One came when I inferred the first large-scale molecular phylogeny of the ants and found striking diversification that corresponded to the rise of the flowering plants. The second came when I started to realize the key role that host-associated bacteria can have on the ecology and evolution of social insects. For me what made these both so memorable is they helped explain the ecological and evolutionary success of the group of organisms I had been studying so intimately.

IS: If teaching is part of your work, what courses do you teach? Has your work on social insects helped to shape your teaching?

CSM: Being at a large natural history museum, I have the opportunity to share my research and educate a very diverse audience on a daily basis. This is really rewarding. Since everyone has at least seen an ant, this opens the door to be able to talk about cutting-edge research and how this informs other aspects of science. I have also taught a phylogenetics course at the University of Chicago and enjoy being in the more formal classroom setting too. Being able to share the theoretical framework and analytical skills that allow students to address their own research questions is very gratifying.

IS: What is the last book you read? Would you recommend it? Why or why not?

CSM: I am currently reading “Time, Love, Memory: A Great Biologist and His Quest for the Origins of Behavior” by Jonathan Weiner. It was sent to me as a gift from Dr. Hopi Hoekstra, behavioural geneticists at Harvard University. The book follows the research career of Dr. Seymour Benzer to tell the history of behavioral genetics. The book is very well written and provides insights into not only the scientific highlights of this field, but the opportunity to learn a little about the lives of several scientists that helped develop this field.

IS: Did any one book have a major influence in shaping your career? What was the book and how did it affect you?

CSM: One book that I consistently return to is “Ants: Their Structure, Development, and Behavior” by William Morton Wheeler. This book was published in 1910 and is still one of the most insightful and complete books on ants. Of course, many things we know about ants has changed in the last 100 years, but this book still has so many inspiring insights into ant biology. And the figures and diagrams on ant internal and external anatomy are excellent!

IS: Outside of science, what are your favourite activities, hobbies or sports?

CSM: Reading, running, yoga, hiking, and traveling the world for research and fun with my husband, Dr. Christophe Duplais.

IS: How do you keep going when things get tough?

CSM: I wish I had some words of wisdom here since I know everyone has difficult times or obstacles to overcome. For me I try to return to what excites me, which is often enough to help push me through the tough times.

IS: If you were to go live on an uninhabited island and could only bring three things, what would you bring? Why?

CSM: This is a tough question. I would bring an avocado seed to grow lots of avocados to eat. A hand lens to be able to try to identify all the cool insects I find. And, lastly, a field notebook (and lots of pencils – I know that is more than one thing, but you need pencils if you have a notebook) to record all my observations.

IS: Who do you think has had the greatest influence on your science career?

CSM: I don’t think any scientist can attribute their careers to one person and that is certainly true for me. My advisors and mentors from undergraduate, master’s, Ph.D. and postdoc all deserve very special thanks. In addition there are a myriad of teachers and scientists that have had a big impact on the way I think and try to solve problems. I thank them all.

IS: What advice would you give to a young person hoping to be a social insect researcher in the future?

CSM: Follow your passions. Working in science is really rewarding, and I believe it is important to do what you love everyday. So if you are passionate about some aspect of social insect science then you should absolutely go for it! There are more questions and species than people on the planet so we need all the social insect scientists we can get.

 

 

Interview with a social insect scientist: Elizabeth Tibbetts

E TibbetsIS: Who are you and what do you do?

ET: My name is Elizabeth Tibbetts and I am a professor in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan.

IS: How did you end up researching social insects?

ET: I’m not one of the those people who always loved insects. In fact, I was pretty scared of them as a child. I decided to study social insects in graduate school because they seemed more tractable than vertebrates. I’m glad I did. I fell in love with wasps and haven’t looked back.

IS: What is your favourite social insect and why?

ET: My favourite social insects are Polistes paper wasps. I’ve become quite attached to them over the years. I love the way their social organization combines cooperation and conflict. Polistes form stable societies, but each wasp also has its own agenda. Sometimes individuals fight for supremacy within their group or leave their natal nest to reproduce independently. Polistes are also a great group to study my favourite topics: communication and cognition.

IS: What is the best moment/discovery in your research so far? What made it so memorable?

ET: My best moment of scientific discovery happened in graduate school when I figured out that Polistes fuscatus use their facial patterns for individual recognition. In my second year of graduate school, I noticed that Polistes fuscatus wasps have highly variable facial patterns. I followed up the observation with a few behavioural experiments. I still remember the thrill of analysing the data and realizing my experiment worked. Wasps really are capable of individual face recognition.

As a new graduate student, I wondered whether I could ever discover something new. People have been studying social insects for hundreds of years, so how could I hope to contribute anything? Over time, I’ve learned that there is no lack of exciting research questions in even the most common organism.

P fuscatus individual recognition

The distinctive facial markings of Polistes fuscatus. Photo: E. Tibbetts

IS: If teaching is part of your work, what courses do you teach? Has your work on social insects helped to shape your teaching?

ET: I teach animal behaviour classes at introductory and advanced levels. I’m sure I include more insect examples than many animal behaviour instructors. However, I try to limit myself. For some reason, introductory students tend to be more interested in whales than bees.

IS: What is the last book you read? Would you recommend it? Why or why not?

ET: I recommend “Lab Girl” by Hope Jahren. It’s a beautifully written memoir about her life as a plant geobiologist . The book does a great job of describing the ups and downs of life as a research scientist.

IS: Did any one book have a major influence in shaping your career? What was the book and how did it affect you?

ET: In high school, I read all the books in the ‘Nature’ section of our public library. Some were great (“The Selfish Gene”, “Gorillas in the Mist”), while others were not so great (“The Naked Ape”). That section of the library is probably responsible for my decision to study biology as an undergrad and animal behaviour as a grad student.

IS: Outside of science, what are your favourite activities, hobbies or sports?

ET: Most of my time outside of work is spent with my two kids (4 and 7 years old). We spend a lot of time playing Legos, pretending to be superheros, reading, and swimming.

IS: How do you keep going when things get tough?

ET: I remind myself that a scientific career is a marathon rather than a sprint, so there is no need to panic about a failed experiment or a rejected grant. There is usually lots of time to overcome challenges and turn things around.

IS:  If you were to go live on an uninhabited island and could only bring three things, what would you bring? Why?

ET: I would bring a satellite phone to call for help, fresh water, and a book to read while I wait.

IS: Who do you think has had the greatest influence on your science career?

ET: I’m grateful to my dad for instilling an early love of science. My graduate experience at Cornell was also very influential. There was a large, enthusiastic group of graduate students who had a big effect on my scientific development. My advisor, Kern Reeve, and committee, Tom Seeley, Elizabeth Adkins-Regan, and Cole Gilbert were also wonderful.

IS: What advice would you give to a young person hoping to be a social insect researcher in the future?

ET: Having a life outside work (hobbies, family) is compatible with being a successful scientist. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.

Get in the habit of writing every day. You need to get your ideas into the world and effective writing is the best way to do it.

 

Interview with a social insect scientist: Juliana Rangel

juliana

IS: Who are you and what do you do?

JR: My name is Juliana Rangel, Assistant Professor of Apiculture at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX, USA. I run a research and teaching program focusing on the health and biology of managed and feral Apis mellifera colonies.

IS: How did you end up researching social insects?

JR: When I was an undergraduate student at the University of California, San Diego, I emailed Dr. James Nieh, who had just started his position as Assistant Professor in the unit of Ecology, Behavior and Evolution, which was also my major. Coming from Colombia, I wanted to get experience with research, especially in projects that were being conducted in the tropics. Coincidentally Dr Nieh had a research project in Brazil studying communication mechanisms in stingless Melipona bees. I worked for a semester analysing sound pulses produced by Melipona mandaçaia foragers upon being trained to feeders… I really liked what I was doing! Then Dr. Nieh invited me to be his research assistant in Brazil working with actual colonies… the rest is history. I worked with stingless honey bees for the rest of my undergraduate years, and in 2004 I started a doctoral degree in the department of Neurobiology and Behavior at Cornell University still working with stingless bees. My project wasn’t going fast enough so a couple of years into it my Ph. D. advisor, Dr. Tom Seeley, suggested that I switched to working with Apis mellifera. I have worked on several research projects exploring various aspects of reproductive biology of queens and drones ever since, and I love it.

drone with varroa

Left: a male honey bee (drone) with a varroa mite on its back. Right: a queen honey bee.

IS: What is your favourite social insect and why?

JR: Of course Apis mellifera. Despite being widely studied, there are still so many fascinating discoveries about its biology that never stop to amaze me… the way that colony organization is decentralized and yet so meticulously timed and executed is a feat difficult to top by any other organism… and the rules applied in decision-making processes are just as captivating. I am particularly amazed at how sperm storage is maintained for so long in honey bee queens after mating… overall there are just too many factoids about honey bee biology that make it the ideal organism to study and love.

IS: What is the best moment/discovery in your research so far? What made it so memorable?

swarm 2

A honey bee swarm taking off.

JR: I have had many great moments of discovery, but my favorite one happened in 2009. I was on Appledore Island, Maine, studying with Tom Seeley the signals (and signallers) that initiate a swarm’s departure from the parental nest. We set up glass walled observation colonies and artificial boxes that nest-site scouts soon discovered and started recruiting nest mates to. Upon arrival to the boxes our assistant Sean Griffin (who still also studies pollinators) would label scouts with paint on their thorax so that we could identify their arrival back at the observation colony. We soon discovered that indeed, nest-site scouts start the house hunting process days before a swarm leaves the parental nest, a great discovery of its own. Even though Sean had labelled a few hundred bees from one colony that was preparing to issue a swarm in a couple of days, we did not find that many labelled bees back in the colony. Something was off… when the swarm left a couple of days later, we suspected something weird and opened the nest box, only to find hundreds of labelled bees “guarding” it by staying inside until the swarm movedinto the box. This exciting discovery led us to conduct a follow up study the next summer in which we set up pairs of swarms on stands (we could distinguish the two form the color of their cuticle) and video taped what happened inside nest boxes. Indeed swarms compete for high quality nest sites by keeping guard inside the coveted boxes, and engage in overt aggression ranging from behavioural escalation of intent, to direct stinging and lethal combat. Really cool stuff…

IS: If teaching is part of your work, what courses do you teach? Has your work on social insects helped to shape your teaching?

JR: I teach three courses. Two undergraduate courses are focused on honey bees: Honey Bee Biology which is a course for juniors and is solely lecture-based. And my favorite, Introduction to Beekeeping, which is a field, hands-on ‘laboratory’ course that teaches students how to start their own colonies and how to manage them throughout the year. I also teach a graduate-level course on “Professional Contract and Grant Writing” which helps students understand the “art” of grant writing and award management.

IS: What is the last book you read? Would you recommend it? Why or why not?

JR: I am currently reading “Bee Genetics and Breeding” by Tom Rinderer. It’s a very thorough book on all aspects of honey bee breeding. I would highly recommend it to people studying honey bee reproductive biology. Although it was written in the late 80s, it still has a lot of pertinent information about queen and drone biology, some of which has not been advanced much since the book was written.

IS: Did any one book have a major influence in shaping your career? What was the book and how did it affect you?

JR: Yes, “The Wisdom of the Hive” by my Ph.D. advisor Tom Seeley. I had to read it for my oral exams, and it gave me a lot of insights into what we knew and didn’t know (then) about colony organization. Oh, and of course “Honey Bee Biology” by Mark Winston, because even though it has not been updated since 1987, it shows how much we still don’t know about honey bee biology. The are “must reads” by anyone studying Apis mellifera.

IS: Outsisde of science, what are your favourite activities, hobbies or sports?

JR: I love to travel and to go camping. Now that I am a new mother of a six-month old baby, I love spending time with my husband and kid just walking and traveling with them… and with our red heeler dog, Max. I also love to cook and to entertain friends and family at our home… and I play the guitar and sing Latin American folk songs, especially during gatherings.

IS: How do you keep going when things get tough?

JR: I rely on my family for support, and try to communicate with colleagues and mentors who have always supported me. I have always found that talking about what is going on, regardless of how difficult the situation might be, is very positive for resolution. As my wise mother always says, “no two days are alike” and “each day comes with its own rush,” both of which are true. Taking life one day at a time but with a good plan for the future has worked well for me.

IS: If you were to go live on an uninhabited island and could only bring three things, what would you bring? Why?

JR: This one is very tough. Would I be alone or with my family? If I was alone I would bring my baby, my husband, and my mother… but what about the rest of my family? And Max? Oh this question is tough. If it had to be things, not people… tools to seek and cook food and/or to make a shelter. That’s all. Maybe a pen and paper.

IS: Who do you think has had the greatest influence on your science career?

JR: Of course it has to be my PhD advisor, Tom Seeley. I am just so lucky to have been accepted in his lab and to have worked so closely with him during my years at Cornell. I could not have asked for a better advisor. I still keep in touch with Tom and ask for advise on life-changing opportunities… his words are always wise and accurate. He also finds joy in seeing me progress in my academic and personal life, which is always a plus.

IS: What advice would you give to a young person hoping to be a social insect researcher in the future?

JR: I would say go for it. You know that if you’re in an academic life, you will never be rich. We don’t do this for the money. As the late Dr Tom Eisner said, we do it “for love of insects.” I would encourage students to explore questions that have a basic biology aspect to their research… too much of the current research focuses on next-generation “-omics” work that often overlooks past the importance of knowing basic biology: behaviour, ecology… which are the studies that I find most fascinating still to date. Learn a wide set of experimental tools to be competitive in the current job market, be flexible with your job expectations, and do good, ethical work, always. Oh, and have fun while doing it!

 

Do persistent ants work better together?

A blog post highlighting the article by H.F. McCreery in Insectes Sociaux

By Helen McCreery (@HelenMcCreery)

Ants are famous for their ability to carry heavy things. But some food items are too large and heavy for an ant to carry alone. In some species, ants that come across these large food items will return to the nest to recruit help to carry it home.

Ant species differ dramatically in how effective groups are at cooperatively transporting these items. A small number of species – such as weaver ants and crazy ants – can rapidly carry extremely heavy objects many thousands of times the mass of each individual. On the other hand, most ant species are relatively uncoordinated, and may not succeed at all.

What makes some ant species excel at cooperative transport? One major challenge of cooperative transport is that the group must agree on a travel direction. I hypothesized a behavioral trait possessed by individual ants – persistence – affects groups’ ability to coordinate their efforts in a particular travel direction, and thus, to succeed.

Persistence is a measure of how likely an individual is to change the direction she’s trying to move an object – or even to give up – if she’s unsuccessful. Highly persistent ants will keep pulling in the same direction for a long time, even if it’s not working. If a group is full of highly persistent individuals, they may fail because they pull in opposing directions for a long time. On the other hand, if a group is full of low-persistence individuals, they may change direction too frequently or simply not try for long enough to get going. Some previous work (McCreery et al. 2016) showed that in most cases high persistence improves coordination, at least in a theoretical context. I tested this hypothesis experimentally, by comparing cooperative transport ability in species that differ in persistence, and by manipulating persistence in groups of one species.

For the first part of this project, I worked with four ant species that ranged from impressively successful at cooperative transport (crazy ants: Paratrechina longicornis) to poor cooperative transporters (Formica pallidefulva), with Formica podzolica and Formica obscuripes making up the middle ground – groups in these two species seem to be moderately effective at carrying objects together (see video below). I measured persistence for dozens of individuals in each of these species by watching them complete an impossible task – trying to move a dead cricket I pinned to the ground. Separately, I measured the degree of coordination of groups in each of these species by recording groups engaged in cooperative transport. I measured two aspects of their coordination: success fraction (in what proportion of attempts did groups move at least 10 cm?) and path directness (did they move in a straight line or did they change direction frequently?). If species with highly persistent individuals were also more successful, it would support my hypothesis.

 

Video: H. McCreery

In the four species that I compared, I found just that pattern. Importantly, I found that there was substantial variation among species in both persistence and in coordination. P. longicornis individuals were the most persistent by far, and formed groups that were the most coordinated, succeeding in over 97% of attempts. On the other hand, F. pallidefulva individuals had dramatically lower persistence and were the least coordinated – F. pallidefulva groups only succeeded in about a quarter of attempts. The two other species, F. podzolica and F. obscuripes, both had individuals that were moderately persistent, and formed groups that were moderately coordinated – these groups succeeded most of the time, but with relatively indirect paths, they tended to travel about twice the distance they needed to because they frequently changed direction. High individual persistence is correlated with high group coordination in these four species.

ant pulleyIn the second part of this project, I wanted to test whether coordination could be improved by increasing persistence so I manipulated persistence in groups of F. podzolica. I did this by measuring the path-directness of groups, and then adding one or two infinitely persistent “fake ants,” and measuring path-directness again. I added fake ants by mimicking the pulling force that such ants would apply on an object. I gave groups of ants heavy baits attached to string. Using a pulley system, I could add a pulling force on the baits by adding weight on the end of the string (see above figure). Check out the video below to see how I measured the pulling force of these ants.

 

I measured the pulling force of F. podzolica workers by recording them pulling on coiled chains. They enthusiastically pulled on these chains without bait!
Video: H. McCreery

The fake ants that I added to these transport groups were infinitely persistent, because the string would never stop pulling and never change direction. While the force of one ant made no difference, adding the pulling force of two ants going the same direction seemed to moderately improve coordination. These groups tended to move with more direct paths after I added the fake ants. I was surprised to see even a moderate effect, given that I only mimicked a single possible cue (the pulling force); my fake ants did not mimic anything else about real ants. Together with the results from the first part of this project (species comparison), these results suggest an important role of individual persistence in coordination during cooperative transport.

I found that species with more persistent individuals formed more coordinated transport groups, and that artificially increasing persistence moderately improved coordination. It can be difficult to draw strong conclusions when comparing across species, and indeed, the four species I evaluated differ in many more traits than just persistence. It is possible that another difference among these species, instead of persistence, has a more important effect on coordination. Despite this difficulty, comparing cooperative transport across species that dramatically differ is an important step in understanding the mechanisms of coordination. I would be interested to see if other species, beyond these four, fit a similar pattern with respect to persistence and coordination. The results of this study further suggest additional, targeted experiments that could get at the specifics a causal relationship between persistence and coordination.

Reference

McCreery HF, Correll N, Breed MD, Flaxman S (2016) Consensus or Deadlock? Consequences of Simple Behavioral Rules for Coordination in Group Decisions. PLOS ONE 11:e0162768. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162768

Interview with a social insect scientist: Raghavendra Gadagkar

RG @20170428 1 MB

IS: Who are you and what do you do?

RG: My name is Raghavendra Gadagkar and I am currently a Professor in the Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.

I do several things:

I research questions concerning the evolution of cooperation and conflict in animal societies, using the Indian paper wasp Ropalidia marginata for my empirical research.

I teach evolutionary biology, behavioural ecology, sociobiology and organismal biology to doctoral, masters and undergraduate students.

As President of the Indian National Science Academy (until recently) and with other similar affiliations, I contribute toward the promotion of science and good science policy in India and elsewhere.

IS: How did you end up researching social insects?

RG:  I was fond of catching and watching insects, frogs and other moving creatures as a child. In college I encountered several colonies of Ropalida marginata on the windows of the zoology department. I could not help watching them out of curiosity and have not since looked back. R. marginata also converted me from a catcher (they sting) to a watcher (their behaviour is fascinating). At first I watched them merely as a layman. Then I began to study them scientifically, but only as a week-end hobby. After my PhD in molecular biology, I converted my hobby into my full-time profession.

IS: What is your favourite social insect and why?

RG:  The tropical primitively eusocial wasp, Ropalidia marginata. I have been studying it for over 40 years and it continues to present me with new intellectual challenges and continues to give me great delight. I have not felt the need to look beyond, with the exception of occasionally studying the congeneric Ropalidia cyathiformis, but only to understand R. marginata better.

Rm nest

Ropalidia marginata.

IS: What is the best moment/discovery in your research so far? What made it so memorable?

The discovery of behavioural caste differentiation into Sitters, Fighters and Foragers through the use of multivariate statistical analysis of quantitative behavioural data, in the early 1980’s remains, to this day the most exciting and memorable moment. Several factors have contributed to the special status of this early work. It was my first scientific discovery outside of molecular biology, it was made entirely by following my instincts rather than by following the literature and it has remained the starting point for almost everything I have done since.

IS: If teaching is part of your work, what courses do you teach? Has your work on social insects helped to shape your teaching?

RG: I teach courses in evolutionary biology, behavioural ecology, sociobiology and organismal biology to doctoral, masters and undergraduate students. During the last five years my undergraduate students regularly perform field and laboratory experiments with ants, bees and wasps.

IS: What is the last book you read? Would you recommend it? Why or why not?

RG: The most recent book I have read is “Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life” by EO Wilson. I would strongly recommend it to any and all persons. It is a remarkably well-written and passionate plea to treat the planet responsibly. Besides, it is brimming with the most recent scientific discoveries, described in Wilson’s inimitable style and laced with Wilson’s priceless wisdom.

IS: Did any one book have a major influence in shaping your career? What was the book and how did it affect you?

RG: Two books that I read as a first-year undergraduate changed my life: King Solomon’s Ring by Konrad Lorenz and The Double Helix by James Watson. Both books described great science but their real magic came from the fact that they described the process of doing science.

IS: Outside of science, what are your favourite activities, hobbies or sports?

RG: When I was doing molecular biology, watching wasps was my hobby. When watching wasps became my profession, I needed a new serious hobby, besides reading book and watching movies. My new hobby is to break the boundaries of scholarship and bring together the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities and arts, both in research and in teaching.

IS: How do you keep going when things get tough?

RG: Just keep going – there is no other way! My science itself is a hobby so that things never really get that tough.

IS: If you were to go live on an uninhabited island and could only bring three things, what would you bring? Why?

RG:  The answer to this depends on where the island is located and how long I would have to be there. Besides, today, this question has become a bit trivial – most people on the planet would say: “my smartphone is enough”. That would be my first choice with or without internet, as long as I can power it with batteries. I am not that much of a field biologist and my passion is more in watching than in catching. I suspect that I could spend endless time watching all kinds of animals, especially insects for which I need almost nothing.

IS: Who do you think has had the greatest influence on your science career?

RG:  My science teacher in sixth grade inspired me to become a scientist, my biology teacher in 8th grade inspired me to become a biologist, WD Hamilton and EO Wilson have been my role models.

IS: What advice would you give to a young person hoping to be a social insect researcher in the future?

RG: The same advice that I would give to any young researcher hoping to do any kind of science – avoid fashions and try to do something original and creative and minimize your dependence on what is hard to get (funding, equipment or whatever is hard to get). In the context of social insect research today this translates into studying behaviour in the field.

Invasive Social Wasps

Highlighting the article written by T. Takeuchi, R. Takahashi, T. Kyoshi, M. Nakamura, Y. Minoshima, J.-I. Takahashi in Insectes Sociaux

Written by Insectes Sociaux Editor-in-Chief, Michael Breed

8628860020_d04f321542_k

Vespa velutina attacking a honey bee. Photo: Danel Solabarriela/flickr

In this issue of Insectes Sociaux, Takeuchi and colleagues reveal the genetic origins of an invasive population of Vespa velutina (the yellow-legged hornet) in the western islands of Japan. This invasive wasp is a predator on the honey bee species Apis cerana in its native range and can prey on Apis mellifera outside of its normal range (Monceau et al 2013). Native to the southern part of Asia and to Indonesia, it has also been introduced into Korea and Europe. They use mitochondrial DNA sequences to generate a cladogram for populations of this wasp and are also able to draw conclusions about genetic variation in the invasive population in Japan. Genetic variation may support the phenotypic flexibility exhibited by some invasives and consequently it is an important feature to characterize in invasive populations.

The role of social insects, such as this hornet, as biologically invasive species is well known, principally because of the prominence of invasive ants through the last 100 years in ecological studies and their creation of important issues in public health and agriculture. The numerous exemplars of high-impact invasive ants include the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, the pharaoh ant, Monomorium pharaonis and the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. The Formosan termite, Coptotermes formosanus, is a major pest in many habitats.   The western honeybee, Apis mellifera, is invasive throughout the Americas, first as an introduction by European colonialists on the east coast of North America in the 1600s, and then by the introduction of a more aggressive form in the 1950s in Brazil.

In some cases invasive social insects, such as the fire ant and the Argentine ant, are perceived to have essentially overrun an entire ecosystem. These species cause massive shifts in the terrestrial invertebrate fauna, impact the reproductive success of ground nesting birds, and have ripple effects on other trophic levels. However, many social insect invasions occur quietly and go largely unnoticed because the ecological impacts of the invasion are subtle and there are no apparent public health or agricultural implications of the invasion. Whether the impacts are large or small, understanding the processes of biological invasions is a key question in evolution, ecology and behavior.

What makes some social insects such effective invasive species? Ecological flexibility, high reproductive rates, and ability to disperse within the landscape all must be important factors. But many populations of invasive species, social insect or otherwise, survive very narrow genetic bottlenecks. Introductions of species to new areas often involve the transport (typically by humans) of a very small number of individuals or colonies. This may translate into invasive populations with low genetic diversity.

Takeuchi et al (2017) sequenced three mitochondrial genes, COI, Cytb, and 16S rRNA, from samples of V. velutina collected across its natural range, plus invasive populations in Japan and Korea. Their results show that this species is likely monophyletic, but that there are two relatively distinct geographical clades, one in Indonesia and Malaysia, the other more broadly distributed in continental Asia. The invasive Korean population nests within the populations from China, and the invasive Japanese population probably derives from the geographically nearby Korean population.

Significantly, Takeuchi et al (2017) found no genetic variation in these genes in the Japanese population. While their finding is unusually low, even for an invasive that has gone through a genetic bottleneck, it is by no means out of the ordinary to observe invasive social insect populations that derive from a few individuals or a few colonies. In the case of V. velutina, Takeuchi et al. (2017) argue that fertilized queens could easily be carried along in goods transported by humans and that, in a practical approach to regulation of invasions, vigilance for fertilized queens might be useful. It would be very interesting to compare the social flexibility and ecological adaptability of the Japanese population of V. velutina with Chinese populations to see if these features have been affected by the bottleneck.

These findings raise the very interesting question of how invasive social insects are able to retain ecological and social flexibility, keys to being successful invasive species, through periods of small population size. Mechanisms for carrying characteristics that are key to invasiveness through a bottleneck could include having multiple queens in colonies mating more than once, plasticity in phenotypic expression, or rapid evolution of genetic diversity via mutation. Each of these strategies could be effective, and future work building on approaches like those of Takeuchi et al (2017) should help to explain the properties that make some social insects such effective invasive species.

 

8628858432_ec0b9afac5_z

Vespa velutina, the yellow-legged hornet. Photo: Danel Solabarriela/flickr

References

Monceau K, Arca M, Leprêtre L, Mougel F, Bonnard O, Silvain J-F, et al. (2013) Native Prey and Invasive Predator Patterns of Foraging Activity: The Case of the Yellow-Legged Hornet Predation at European Honeybee Hives. PLoS ONE 8(6): e66492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066492

Takeuchi T, Takahashi R, Kyoshi T, Nakamura M, Minoshima Y, Takahashi J-I. (2017) The origin and genetic diversity of the yellow-legged hornet, Vespa velutina introduced in Japan. Insect Soc DOI: 10.1007/s00040-017-0545-z