Division of labour and colony efficiency in social insects: effects of interactions between genetic architecture, colony kin structure and rate of perturbations

The efficiency of social insect colonies critically depends on their ability to efficiently allocate workers to the various tasks which need to be performed. While numerous models have investigated the mechanisms allowing an efficient colony response to external changes in the environment and internal perturbations, little attention has been devoted to the genetic architecture underlying task specialization. We used artificial evolution to compare the performances of three simple genetic architectures underlying within-colony variation in response thresholds of workers to five tasks. In the ‘deterministic mapping’ system, the thresholds of individuals for each of the five tasks is strictly genetically determined. In the second genetic architecture (‘probabilistic mapping’), the genes only influence the probability of engaging in one of the tasks. Finally, in the ‘dynamic mapping’ system, the propensity of workers to engage in one of the five tasks depends not only on their own genotype, but also on the behavioural phenotypes of other colony members. We found that the deterministic mapping system performed well only when colonies consisted of unrelated individuals and were not subjected to perturbations in task allocation. The probabilistic mapping system performed well for colonies of related and unrelated individuals when there were no perturbations. Finally, the dynamic mapping system performed well under all conditions and was much more efficient than the two other mapping systems when there were perturbations. Overall, our simulations reveal that the type of mapping between genotype and individual behaviour greatly influences the dynamics of task specialization and colony productivity. Our simulations also reveal complex interactions between the mode of mapping, level of within-colony relatedness and risk of colony perturbations.

[1]  G. Robinson,et al.  Hormonal and Genetic Control of Behavioral Integration in Honey Bee Colonies , 1989, Science.

[2]  G. Robinson Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. , 1992, Annual review of entomology.

[3]  G. Robinson,et al.  Honeybee colony integration: worker-worker interactions mediate hormonally regulated plasticity in division of labor. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Eörs Szathmáry,et al.  The Major Transitions in Evolution , 1997 .

[5]  L. Keller,et al.  ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION: Insights from Fire Ants and Other Highly Eusocial Insects , 1995 .

[6]  M. Fondrk,et al.  Major quantitative trait loci affecting honey bee foraging behavior. , 1995, Genetics.

[7]  L. Keller Social evolution in ants , 1996 .

[8]  R. Crozier,et al.  Genetic Intrigues. (Book Reviews: Evolution of Social Insect Colonies. Sex Allocation and Kin Selection.) , 1997 .

[9]  G. Robinson,et al.  Regulation of honey bee division of labor by colony age demography , 1996, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[10]  E. Bonabeau,et al.  Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labour in insect societies , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  J. Evans Evolution of social insect colonies: Sex allocation and kin selection: By R.H. Crozier and P. Pamilo Oxford University Press, 1996. £39.50 hbk, £19.95 pbk (viii + 306 pages) ISBN 0 19 854943 1 , 1997 .

[12]  L. Keller,et al.  Indiscriminate altruism: unduly nice parents and siblings. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  E. Bonabeau,et al.  Self-organization in social insects. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[14]  G. Theraulaz,et al.  Response threshold reinforcements and division of labour in insect societies , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  J. Erber,et al.  The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) , 1998, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[16]  E. Bonabeau,et al.  Fixed response thresholds and the regulation of division of labor in insect societies , 1998 .

[17]  S. O’Donnell Genetic effects on task performance, but not on age polyethism, in a swarm-founding eusocial wasp , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  J. Fewell,et al.  Colony-level selection effects on individual and colony foraging task performance in honeybees, Apis mellifera L. , 2000, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[19]  M. Fondrk,et al.  Genetic dissection of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) foraging behavior. , 2000, The Journal of heredity.

[20]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Emergent polyethism as a consequence of increased colony size in insect societies. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[21]  J. Fewell,et al.  Colony response to graded resource changes: an analytical model of the influence of genotype, environment, and dominance. , 2003, Theoretical population biology.

[22]  T. Pankiw,et al.  Pleiotropy, epistasis and new QTL: the genetic architecture of honey bee foraging behavior. , 2004, The Journal of heredity.

[23]  Robert E. Page,et al.  Genotypic variability in age polyethism and task specialization in the honey bee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[24]  Edward O. Wilson,et al.  Between-caste aversion as a basis for division of labor in the ant Pheidole pubiventris (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1985, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.