Genetic royal cheats in leaf-cutting ant societies

Social groups are vulnerable to cheating because the reproductive interests of group members are rarely identical. All cooperative systems are therefore predicted to involve a mix of cooperative and cheating genotypes, with the frequency of the latter being constrained by the suppressive abilities of the former. The most significant potential conflict in social insect colonies is over which individuals become reproductive queens rather than sterile workers. This reproductive division of labor is a defining characteristic of eusocial societies, but individual larvae will maximize their fitness by becoming queens whereas their nestmates will generally maximize fitness by forcing larvae to become workers. However, evolutionary constraints are thought to prevent cheating by removing genetic variation in caste propensity. Here, we show that one-fifth of leaf-cutting ant patrilines cheat their nestmates by biasing their larval development toward becoming queens rather than workers. Two distinct mechanisms appear to be involved, one most probably involving a general tendency to become a larger adult and the other relating specifically to the queen–worker developmental switch. Just as evolutionary theory predicts, these “royal” genotypes are rare both in the population and within individual colonies. The rarity of royal cheats is best explained as an evolutionary strategy to avoid suppression by cooperative genotypes, the efficiency of which is frequency-dependent. The results demonstrate that cheating can be widespread in even the most cooperative of societies and illustrate that identical principles govern social evolution in highly diverse systems.

[1]  Thomas D Seeley,et al.  Genetic Diversity in Honey Bee Colonies Enhances Productivity and Fitness , 2007, Science.

[2]  T. Wenseleers,et al.  Working-class royalty: bees beat the caste system , 2005, Biology Letters.

[3]  F. Ratnieks,et al.  Tragedy of the commons in Melipona bees , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  J. Boomsma,et al.  Does genetic diversity hinder parasite evolution in social insect colonies? , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[5]  Burt,et al.  Genes in Conflict , 2008 .

[6]  K. Foster,et al.  Conflict resolution in insect societies. , 2006, Annual review of entomology.

[7]  D. Floreano,et al.  Division of labour and colony efficiency in social insects: effects of interactions between genetic architecture, colony kin structure and rate of perturbations , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  Kevin R Foster,et al.  High relatedness maintains multicellular cooperation in a social amoeba by controlling cheater mutants , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  H. Hepburn,et al.  Rare royal families in honeybees, Apis mellifera , 2005, Naturwissenschaften.

[10]  J. Strassmann,et al.  Altruism and social cheating in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum , 2000, Nature.

[11]  Seirian Sumner,et al.  Worker caste polymorphism has a genetic basis in Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  F. Ratnieks,et al.  Patriline differences in emergency queen rearing in the honey bee, Apis mellifera , 2003, Insectes Sociaux.

[13]  Jutta Tentschert,et al.  Informational constraints on optimal sex allocation in ants , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  S. West,et al.  Evolution: Revenge of the Clones! , 2005, Current Biology.

[15]  John D. Storey,et al.  Statistical significance for genomewide studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[17]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

[18]  A. Griffin,et al.  Evolutionary Explanations for Cooperation , 2007, Current Biology.

[19]  J. S. Pedersen,et al.  Ant parasite queens revert to mating singly , 2004, Nature.

[20]  B. Oldroyd,et al.  Possible causes of reproductive dominance during emergency queen rearing by honeybees , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[21]  D. Wheeler The Developmental Basis of Worker Caste Polymorphism in Ants , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[22]  J. Boomsma,et al.  Genetic polymorphism in leaf-cutting ants is phenotypically plastic , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  T. Wenseleers,et al.  Enforced altruism in insect societies , 2006, Nature.

[24]  F. Ratnieks,et al.  Kin conflict over caste determination in social Hymenoptera , 1999, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[25]  D. Bekkevold,et al.  Multiple mating and facultative polygyny in the Panamanian leafcutter ant Acromyrmex echinatior , 1999, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[26]  S. Frank Foundations of Social Evolution , 2019 .

[27]  J. S. Pedersen,et al.  MATESOFT: a program for deducing parental genotypes and estimating mating system statistics in haplodiploid species , 2004 .

[28]  Andy Gardner,et al.  Frequency Dependence and Cooperation: Theory and a Test with Bacteria , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[29]  J. Fewell,et al.  Genetic diversity promotes homeostasis in insect colonies. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  B. Oldroyd,et al.  Unequal subfamily proportions among honey bee queen and worker brood , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[31]  L. Keller Levels of selection in evolution , 1999 .

[32]  E. Fehr,et al.  Altruistic punishment in humans , 2002, Nature.