Ant social network structure is highly conserved across species.

Tomas Kay, Alba Motes-Rodrigo, Arthur Royston, Thomas O Richardson, Nathalie Stroeymeyt, Laurent Keller
Author Information
  1. Tomas Kay: Laboratory of Social Evolution and Behavior, The Rockefeller University , New York, NY, USA. ORCID
  2. Alba Motes-Rodrigo: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne , Lausanne, Switzerland.
  3. Arthur Royston: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne , Lausanne, Switzerland.
  4. Thomas O Richardson: School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol , Bristol, UK.
  5. Nathalie Stroeymeyt: School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol , Bristol, UK. ORCID
  6. Laurent Keller: Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne , Lausanne, Switzerland.

Abstract

The ecological success of social insects makes their colony organization fascinating to scientists studying collective systems. In recent years, the combination of automated behavioural tracking and social network analysis has deepened our understanding of many aspects of colony organization. However, because studies have typically worked with single species, we know little about interspecific variation in network structure. Here, we conduct a comparative network analysis across five ant species from five subfamilies, separated by more than 100 Myr of evolution. We find that social network structure is highly conserved across subfamilies. All species studied form modular networks, with two social communities, a similar distribution of individuals between the two communities, and equivalent mapping of task performance onto the communities. Against this backdrop of organizational similarity, queens of the different species occupied qualitatively distinct network positions. The deep conservation of the two community structure implies that the most fundamental behavioural division of labour in social insects is between workers that stay in the nest to rear brood, and those that leave the nest to forage. This division has parallels across the animal kingdom in systems of biparental care and probably represents the most readily evolvable form of behavioural division of labour.

Keywords

References

  1. Science. 2014 Jan 17;343(6168):287-90 [PMID: 24436417]
  2. Sci Rep. 2023 Jan 27;13(1):1541 [PMID: 36707534]
  3. Am Nat. 2010 Oct;176(4):501-10 [PMID: 20735259]
  4. Science. 2013 Feb 1;339(6119):574-6 [PMID: 23372013]
  5. Sci Am. 2003 May;288(5):60-9 [PMID: 12701331]
  6. Mol Ecol. 2003 Jul;12(7):1931-8 [PMID: 12803642]
  7. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 May 7;270(1518):971-7 [PMID: 12803913]
  8. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022 Oct;6(10):1471-1479 [PMID: 35995848]
  9. Sci Rep. 2015 Jul 30;5:12496 [PMID: 26224025]
  10. Naturwissenschaften. 2006 Jul;93(7):309-14 [PMID: 16555093]
  11. Annu Rev Entomol. 2012;57:123-41 [PMID: 21888521]
  12. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Jun 7;119(23):e2123076119 [PMID: 35653573]
  13. Science. 2018 Nov 23;362(6417):941-945 [PMID: 30467168]
  14. Nat Commun. 2018 May 3;9(1):1778 [PMID: 29725049]
  15. J Exp Biol. 2022 Mar 15;225(6): [PMID: 35202460]
  16. Proc Biol Sci. 2022 Jan 26;289(1967):20212176 [PMID: 35078355]
  17. Science. 2009 Jul 24;325(5939):412-3 [PMID: 19628854]
  18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6;103(23):8577-82 [PMID: 16723398]
  19. Nat Commun. 2021 Feb 17;12(1):1110 [PMID: 33597518]
  20. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Oct 4;119(40):e2201550119 [PMID: 36122199]
  21. PLoS Biol. 2023 Jul 24;21(7):e3002203 [PMID: 37486940]
  22. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2019 May;134:111-121 [PMID: 30738910]
  23. Oecologia. 1985 Jul;66(4):484-494 [PMID: 28310787]
  24. Elife. 2023 Apr 17;12: [PMID: 37067884]
  25. Evolution. 1981 Mar;35(2):234-242 [PMID: 28563365]
  26. Nature. 2018 Aug;560(7720):635-638 [PMID: 30135576]
  27. Proc Biol Sci. 2021 Sep 8;288(1958):20211456 [PMID: 34493081]
  28. iScience. 2022 Aug 08;25(9):104842 [PMID: 36039297]
  29. Curr Biol. 2021 May 24;31(10):2253-2260.e3 [PMID: 33730550]
  30. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022 Aug;6(8):1231-1238 [PMID: 35864228]
  31. Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Jul;291(2027):20240898 [PMID: 39079671]
  32. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Feb 7;267(1440):301-5 [PMID: 10714885]
  33. Psychol Bull. 2013 Jan;139(1):53-80 [PMID: 22642230]
  34. PLoS Biol. 2021 Jun 17;19(6):e3001269 [PMID: 34138839]
  35. Science. 2013 May 31;340(6136):1090-3 [PMID: 23599264]
  36. Elife. 2020 Nov 19;9: [PMID: 33211008]
  37. Nat Commun. 2019 Mar 4;10(1):1017 [PMID: 30833554]
  38. Nat Commun. 2022 Nov 15;13(1):6985 [PMID: 36379933]

Grants

  1. /H2020 European Research Council

MeSH Term

Ants
Animals
Social Behavior
Behavior, Animal
Species Specificity
Biological Evolution

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0socialnetworkspeciesstructureacrossdivisioninsectsorganizationbehaviouralanalysistwocommunitieslabourcolonycollectivesystemsfivesubfamilieshighlyconservedformnestecologicalsuccessmakesfascinatingscientistsstudyingrecentyearscombinationautomatedtrackingdeepenedunderstandingmanyaspectsHoweverstudiestypicallyworkedsingleknowlittleinterspecificvariationconductcomparativeantseparated100MyrevolutionfindstudiedmodularnetworkssimilardistributionindividualsequivalentmappingtaskperformanceontobackdroporganizationalsimilarityqueensdifferentoccupiedqualitativelydistinctpositionsdeepconservationcommunityimpliesfundamentalworkersstayrearbroodleaveforageparallelsanimalkingdombiparentalcareprobablyrepresentsreadilyevolvableAntantsbehaviour

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)