Evolution of supercolonies: The Argentine ants of southern Europe

Some ants have an extraordinary social organization, called unicoloniality, whereby individuals mix freely among physically separated nests. This type of social organization is not only a key attribute responsible for the ecological domination of these ants, but also an evolutionary paradox and a potential problem for kin selection theory because relatedness between nest mates is effectively zero. The introduction of the Argentine ant in Europe was apparently accompanied by a dramatic loss of inter-nest aggression and the formation of two immense supercolonies (which effectively are two unicolonial populations). Introduced populations experienced only limited loss of genetic diversity at neutral markers, indicating that the breakdown of recognition ability is unlikely to be merely due to a genetic bottleneck. Rather, we suggest that a “genetic cleansing” of recognition cues occurred after introduction. Indeed workers of the same supercolony are never aggressive to each other despite the large geographical distance and considerable genetic differentiation between sampling sites. By contrast, aggression is invariably extremely high between the two supercolonies, indicating that they have become fixed for different recognition alleles. The main supercolony, which ranges over 6,000 km from Italy to the Spanish Atlantic coast, effectively forms the largest cooperative unit ever recorded.

[1]  R. Matthews,et al.  Ants. , 1898, Science.

[2]  S. Goldhor Ecology , 1964, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[3]  W. Hamilton The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. , 1964, Journal of theoretical biology.

[4]  E. Wilson The Insect Societies , 1974 .

[5]  W. Getz Genetically based kin recognition systems , 1981 .

[6]  P. Sherman,et al.  Kin Recognition by Phenotype Matching , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[7]  P. Sherman,et al.  Kin recognition in animals , 1983 .

[8]  C. Michener,et al.  Kin recognition in animals. , 1989 .

[9]  R. Jeanne,et al.  Interindividual Behavioral Variability in Social Insects , 1988 .

[10]  R. Grosberg,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF SELECTIVE AGGRESSION CONDITIONED ON ALLORECOGNITION SPECIFICITY , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  F. Ratnieks The Evolution of Genetic Odor-Cue Diversity in Social Hymenoptera , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[12]  David F. Williams Ant Invaders. (Book Reviews: Exotic Ants. Biology, Impact, and Control of Introduced Species.) , 1994 .

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

[14]  J. Goudet FSTAT (Version 1.2): A Computer Program to Calculate F-Statistics , 1995 .

[15]  P. Sherman,et al.  Kin recognition. , 1995, Scientific American.

[16]  L. Keller,et al.  Social life: the paradox of multiple-queen colonies. , 1995, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  F. Maytag Evolution , 1996, Arch. Mus. Informatics.

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

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

[20]  J. Sivinski Book Review: Evolution of Social Insect Colonies: Sex Allocation and Kin Selection. , 1997 .

[21]  L. Keller,et al.  MICROSATELLITES REVEAL HIGH POPULATION VISCOSITY AND LIMITED DISPERSAL IN THE ANT FORMICA PARALUGUBRIS , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[22]  H. Fowler,et al.  Intercontinental Differences in the Abundance of Solenopsis Fire Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Escape from Natural Enemies? , 1997 .

[23]  M. Winston,et al.  Pheromone Communication in Social Insects , 1997 .

[24]  Holway,et al.  Loss of intraspecific aggression in the success of a widespread invasive social insect , 1998, Science.

[25]  J. Strassmann,et al.  KIN SELECTION AND SOCIAL INSECTS , 1998 .

[26]  L. Keller,et al.  Low polymorphism at 19 microsatellite loci in a French population of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) , 1999 .

[27]  D. Holway,et al.  COMPETITIVE MECHANISMS UNDERLYING THE DISPLACEMENT OF NATIVE ANTS BY THE INVASIVE ARGENTINE ANT , 1999 .

[28]  D. Liang,et al.  “You are what you eat”: Diet modifies cuticular hydrocarbons and nestmate recognition in the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile , 2000, Naturwissenschaften.

[29]  A. Suarez,et al.  Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in southern California: Area, age, and edge effects , 2000 .

[30]  A. Suarez,et al.  Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  D. Queller Evolutionary ecology: Pax Argentinica , 2000, Nature.

[32]  Andrew F. G. Bourke,et al.  The influence of sociality on the conservation biology of social insects , 2001 .

[33]  A. Suarez,et al.  Patterns of spread in biological invasions dominated by long-distance jump dispersal: Insights from Argentine ants. , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  D. Gordon,et al.  Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species , 1996, Oecologia.

[35]  A. Suarez,et al.  Behavioral and Genetic Differentiation Between Native and Introduced Populations of the Argentine Ant , 2004, Biological Invasions.