Invasive eusocieties: Commonalities between ants and humans

doi:10.1017/9781316686942.016

15 - Invasive eusocieties: Commonalities between ants and humans

from V - Invasion: The Movement of Invasive and Disease Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017

Edited by

Rémy Crassard and

Patrizia D'ettorre: Affiliation:
University of Paris
Nicole Boivin: Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena
Rémy Crassard: Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Lyon
Michael Petraglia: Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

Similar to humans, ants dominate many terrestrial ecosystems as a result of their absolute numbers and diversity. Ants build cities, conduct wars, maintain infant nurseries and cemeteries, and practice agriculture and husbandry. In contrast to humans, the extraordinary ecological success of ants, and their propensity to invasion, has been achieved without the evolution of higher individual cognitive abilities. In this chapter, I describe the qualities that enhance ant dispersal and explore comparisons between ants and humans in the context of the colonization of new environments. Ants and humans have several characteristics in common that have facilitated their global dispersal and ecological success: cooperation, sociality, advanced communication, division of labour, and a generalist lifestyle. Ant societies and human societies are the result of two major transitions in the evolution of complexity in life. Progress in understanding one evolutionary transition might help to explain others.

Keywords: Ants, cooperation, dispersal strategies, invasiveness, unicoloniality

INTRODUCTION: THE ECOLOGICAL SUCCESS OF SOCIETIES

Around 2 million years ago, hominins dispersed out of Africa and started a complex and dynamic process of colonization of the planet, which ultimately culminated in the globalized occurrence of Homo sapiens. The reasons and conditions for this spectacular ecological success are multiple and they are extensively discussed in this volume (see in particular chapters in this volume by Dennell, Drake and Blench, Erlandson, and Petraglia). Above all, it appears that increasing technological innovation, and the parallel development of underlying advanced cognitive abilities, significantly contributed to global human dispersal and anthropogenic ecosystem management. Evidence points to the likelihood that these levels of increasing cognitive complexity would have not been reached if hominins were a solitary species; instead, it appears that brain development is linked to increased group size (Dunbar 2003), multifaceted social interactions (Dunbar et al. 2010), and the characteristics of social networks (see Dennell, this volume).

Here, I will introduce the habits of a group of animals in which, in contrast to humans, extraordinary ecological success and a propensity for invasion have been achieved in the absence of the evolution of higher cognitive abilities, at least at the individual level. Yet, as with humans, the key to the globalized success of these species appears to be related to a highly structured social life.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Human Dispersal and Species Movement
From Prehistory to the Present
, pp. 411 - 429

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316686942.016 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aanen, D.K., Eggleton, P., Rouland-Lefèvre, C., Guldberg-Frøslev, T., Rosendahl, S., and Boomsma, J.J. 2002. The evolution of fungus-growing termites and their mutualistic fungal symbionts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 14887–14992.Google Scholar

Aiello, L.C. and Antón, S.C. 2012. Human biology and the origins of Homo . Current Anthropology 53: S269–S277.Google Scholar

Antón, S.C., Potts, R., and Aiello, L.C. (2014). Evolution of early Homo: an integrated biological perspective. Science 345: 1236828.Google Scholar

Aron, S. 2001. Reproductive strategy: an essential component in the success of incipient colonies of the invasive Argentine ant. Insectes Sociaux 48: 25–27.Google Scholar

Barber, T.C. 1916. The argentine ant: distribution and control in the United States. USDA Bureau of Entomology Bulletin 377: 1–23.Google Scholar

Boomsma, J.J. 2009. Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 364: 3191–207.Google Scholar

Boomsma, J.J. 2013. Beyond promiscuity: mate-choice commitments in social breeding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368 (1613).Google Scholar

Bot, A.N.M., Currie, C.R., Hart, A.G., and Boomsma, J.J. 2001. Waste management in leaf-cutting ants. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 13: 225–237.Google Scholar

Bourke, A. 2011. Principles of Social Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Colautti, R.I. and Richardson, D.M. 2009. Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology: too much of a good thing? Biological Invasions 11: 1225–1229.

Colonese, A.C., Mannino, M.A., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., Fa, D.A., Finlayson, J.C., Lubell, D., and Stiner, M.C. 2011. Marine mollusc exploitation in Mediterranean prehistory: an overview. Quaternary International 239: 86–103.Google Scholar

Costa, J.T. 2006. The Other Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cremer, S., Ugelvig, L.V., Drijfhout, F.P., Schlick-Steiner, B.C., Steiner, F.M., Seifert, B., Hughes, D.P., Schulz, A., Petersen, K.S., Konrad, H., Stauffer, C., Kiran, K., Espadaler, X., d'Ettorre, P., Aktaç, N., Eilenberg, J., Jones, G.R., Nash, D.R., Pedersen, J.S., and Boomsma, J.J. 2008. The evolution of invasiveness in garden ants. PLoS ONE 3: e3838.Google Scholar

d'Ettorre, P. and Heinze, J. 2001. Sociobiology of slave-making ant. Acta Ethologica 3: 67–82.Google Scholar

d'Ettorre, P. and Heinze, J. 2005. Individual recognition in ant queens. Current Biology 15: 2170–2174.Google Scholar

d'Ettorre, P. and Lenoir, A. Nestmate recognition. In Ant Ecology Edited by Lach, L., Parr, C.L., Abbott, K.L.. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010:197–209.

Davis, M.A. 2009. Invasion Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dunbar, R.I.M. 2003. The social brain: mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 32, 163–181.Google Scholar

Dunbar, R.I.M., Gamble, C., and Gowlett, J. (ed.) 2010. Social Brains, Distributed Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foster, K.R. and Ratnieks, F.L.W. 2005. A new eusocial vertebrate? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 363–364.Google Scholar

Fritz, G.N. and Vander Meer, R. K. 2003. Sympatry of polygyne and monogyne colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 96: 86–92.Google Scholar

Giraud, T., Pedersen, J.S., and Keller, L. 2002. Evolution of supercolonies: the Argentine ants of southern Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 6075–6079.Google Scholar

Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O. 1990. The Ants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O. 2008. The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. New York: W.W. Norton.

Holway, D.A. 1999. Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80: 238–251.Google Scholar

Holway, D.A., Lach, L., Suarez, A.V., Tsutsui, N.D., and Case, T.J. 2002. The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 33: 181–233.Google Scholar

Ivens, A.B.F., Kronauer, D.J.C., Pen, I., Weissing, F.J., and Boomsma, J.J. 2012. Ants farm subterranean aphids mostly in clone groups – An example of prudent husbandry for carbohydrates and proteins? BMC Evolutionary Biology 12: 106.Google Scholar

Johnson, R.A. 2001. Biogeography and community structure of North American seed harvester ants. Annual Review of Entomology 46: 1–29.Google Scholar

Krushelnycky, P.D., Holway, D.A., and LeBrun, E.G. 2010. Invasion processes and causes of success. In Ant Ecology, ed. Lach, L., Parr, C.L., and Abbot, K.L., pp. 245–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lach, L. and Hooper-Bùi, L. 2010. Consequences of ant invasions. In Ant Ecology, ed. Lach, L., Parr, C.L., and Abbot, K.L., pp. 261–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lach, L., Parr, C.L., and Abbott, K.L. (ed.) 2010. Ant Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., Evans, H. Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F.A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 10: 689–710.Google Scholar

Marean, C.W., Bar-Matthews, M., Bernatchez, J., Fisher, E., Goldberg, P., Herries, A. et al. 2007. Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449: 905–908.Google Scholar

Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E. 1995. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: W.H. Freeman.

McGlynn, T.P. 1999: The worldwide transfer of ants: geographical distribution and ecological invasions. Journal of Biogeography 26: 535–548.Google Scholar

Pedersen, J.S., Krieger, M.J.B., Vogel, V., Giraud, T., and Keller, L. 2006. Native supercolonies of unrelated individuals in the invasive Argentine ant. Evolution 60: 782–791.Google Scholar

Poulsen, M. and Boomsma, J.J. 2005. Mutualistic fungi control crop diversity in fungus growing ants. Science 307: 741–744.Google Scholar

Queller, D.C. and Strassmann, J.E. 2009. Beyond society: the evolution of organismality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 364: 3143–3155.Google Scholar

Schmidt, A.M., d'Ettorre, P., and Pedersen, J.S. 2010. Low levels of nestmate discrimination despite high genetic differentiation in the invasive pharaoh ant. Frontiers in Zoology 7: 20.Google Scholar

Seeley, T.D. 1995. The Wisdom of the Hive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Seifert, B. 2000. Rapid range expansion in Lasius neglectus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) – an Asian invader swamps Europe. Dt Entomol Zeitschrift 47: 173–179.Google Scholar

Steiner, F.M., Schlick-Steiner, B.C., Schödl, S., Espadaler, X., Seifert, B., Christian, E., and Stauffer, C. 2004. Phylogeny and bionomics of Lasius austriacus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux 51: 24–29.Google Scholar

Strassmann, J.E. and Queller, D.C. 2010. The social organism: congresses, parties, committees. Evolution 64: 605–616.Google Scholar

Suarez, A.V., Holway, D.A., and Case, T. J. 2001. Patterns of spread in biological invasions dominated by long-distance jump dispersal: insights from Argentine ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 1095–1100.Google Scholar

Suarez, A.V., Holway, D.A., and Tsutsui, N.D. 2008. Genetics and behavior of a colonizing species: the invasive argentine ant. American Naturalist 172: S72–S84.Google Scholar

Suarez, A.V., Holway, D.A., and Ward, PS. 2005. The role of opportunity in the unintentional introduction of nonnative ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 17032–17035.Google Scholar

Suarez, A.V., McGlynn, T., and Tsutsui, N.D. 2010. Biogeographic patterns of the origins and spread of introduced ants. In Ant Ecology, ed. Lach, L., Parr, C.L., and Abbot, K.L., pp. 233–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suarez, A.V., Tsutsui, N.D., Holway, D.A., and Case, T. J. 1999. Behavioral and genetic differentiation between native and introduced populations of the Argentine ant. Biological Invasions 1: 43–53.Google Scholar

Szathmáry, E. and Maynard Smith, J. 1995. The major evolutionary transitions. Nature 374: 227–232.Google Scholar

Tschinkel, W.R. 2004. The nest architecture of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius . Journal of Insect Science 4: 21.Google Scholar

Tsutsui, N.D., Suarez, A.V., Holway, D.A., and Case, T.J. 2000. Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97: 5948–5953.Google Scholar

Ugelvig, L.V. and Cremer, S. 2007. Social prophylaxis: group interaction promotes collective immunity in ant colonies. Current Biology 17: 1967–1971.Google Scholar

Ugelvig, L.V., Drijfhout, F.P., Kronauer, D.J.C., Boomsma, J.J., Pedersen, J.S., and Cremer, S. 2008. The introduction history of invasive garden ants in Europe: integrating genetic, chemical and behavioural approaches. BMC Biology 6: 11.Google Scholar

van Zweden, J.S. and d'Ettorre, P. (2010) The role of hydrocarbons in nestmate recognition. In Insect Hydrocarbons: Biology, Biochemistry and Chemical Ecology, ed. Blomquist, G.C. and Bagnères, A.-G., pp. 222–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Vogel, V., Pedersen, J.S., d'Ettorre, P., Lehmann, L., and Keller, L. 2009. Dynamics and genetic structure of Argentine ant supercolonies in their native range. Evolution 63: 1627–1639.Google Scholar

Vogel, V, Pedersen, J.S., Giraud, T., Krieger, M.J.B., and Keller, L. 2010. The worldwide expansion of the Argentine ant. Diversity and Distributions 16: 170–186.Google Scholar

West, S.A., Gardner, A., Shuker, D.M., Reynolds, T., Burton-Chellow, M., et al. 2006. Cooperation and the scale of competition in humans. Curr Biol 16: 1103–1106.Google Scholar

Wilson, E.O. 1971. The Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E.O. 1990. Success and Dominance in Ecosystems: The Case of the Social Insects. Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany: Ecology Institute.

Wilson, E.O. 2005. Early ant plagues in the New World. Nature 433: 32.Google Scholar

Wilson, E.O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.

Wyatt, T.D. 2014. Pheromones and Animal Behavior, edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.