Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T22:24:47.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Colony and species recognition among the Formica ants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

By
Stephen J. Martin
Edited by
Jenni A. Stockan  and
Elva J. H. Robinson
Stephen J. Martin
Affiliation:
University of Salford,Greater Manchester,UK
Jenni A. Stockan
Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute
Elva J. H. Robinson
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

The cause of the perpetual feud among ants of different colonies is due to difference of odour, discerned through their antennae.

Adele Fielde (1901)

Many temperate forests, especially those in Scandinavia, are crawling with wood ants; their mounds and trails scattered everywhere. Although most wood ants (Formica rufa group) look similar, there are a range of species based on a series of morphological features (Chapter 1). The ‘alpha taxonomy’ method established by Linnaeus has been remarkably robust, given that the ants do not use these morphological features to recognise nestmates from non-nestmates. This is achieved by a rich chemical language, and only when we understand this hidden aspect of the ants' world can we start to explain many of their observable behaviours. For example, how are territories maintained, or why do some wood ants vigorously defend their mound while other mounds are linked by trails along which ants move freely (Chapuisat et al. 2005)? We are just starting to reveal the complex recognition systems that allow each ant to distinguish its nestmates from all others and respond accordingly, and the Formica ants currently represent some of the best studied species. Ant recognition is a very active and fast-moving field of research that has been subject to several reviews, which include general reviews (e.g. Hölldobler and Wilson 1990, 2009; Howard and Blomquist 2005), ant social parasitism (Lenoir et al. 2001), fertility signals (Hefetz 2007), books on hydrocarbons (e.g. Blomquist and Bagnères 2010) and other compounds produced by ants (Morgan 2004). This chapter concentrates solely on recent advances in the chemical ecology of Formica ants, including wood ants, which have become leading model systems especially for the study of species and nestmate recognition systems.

Brief history of ant chemical ecology

It has been known for over 100 years that ants use odours to distinguish friends from foes (Fielde 1901, 1903), since aggression between ants from different colonies or species is common, but not universal. In any ant colony or on any foraging trail, ants are continuously using their antenna to touch their surroundings and fellow ants. Unseen by us is an amazingly complex chemical world that governs the vast majority of their behaviours. Whereas most vertebrates rely on visual and oral forms of communication, the vast majority of invertebrates rely on chemical communication.

Type
Chapter
Information
Wood Ant Ecology and Conservation , pp. 106 - 122
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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.)

References

Akino, T. (2006) Cuticular hydrocarbons of Formica truncorum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): description of new very long chained hydrocarbon components. Applied Entomology and Zoology 41: 667–677.Google Scholar
Akino, T., Yamamura, K., Wakamura, S. and Yamaoka, R. (2004) Direct behavioural evidence for hydrocarbons as nestmate recognition cues in Formica japonica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 39: 381–387.Google Scholar
Bagnères, A. G. and Morgan, E. D. (1991) The postpharyngeal gland and the cuticle of Formicidae contain the same characteristic hydrocarbons. Experientia 47: 106–111.Google Scholar
Beye, M., Neumann, P., Chapuisat, M., Pamilo, P. and Moritz, R. F. A. (1998) Nestmate recognition and the genetic relatedness of nests in the ant Formica pratensis. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 43: 67–72.Google Scholar
Beye, M., Neumann, P. and Moritz, R. F. A. (2004) Nestmate recognition and the genetic gestalt in the mound-building ant Formica polyctena. Insectes Sociaux 44: 49–58.Google Scholar
Billen, J. (1990) A survey of the glandular system of fire ants. In Vander Meer, R. K., Jaffe, K. and Cedeno, A. (eds), Applied Myrmecology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 85–94.
Billen, J. (2004) Morphology of exocrine glands in social insects with special emphasis on the contributions by Italian researchers. Insect Society Life 5: 69–75.Google Scholar
Billen, J. (2009) Occurrence and structural organization of the exocrine glands in the legs of ants. Arthropod Structure and Development 38: 2–15.Google Scholar
Billen, J. and Morgan, E. D. (1998) Pheromone communication in social insects: sources and secretions. In Vander Meer, R. K., Breed, M. D., Winston, M. L. and Espelie, K. E. (eds), Pheromone Communication in Social Insects: Ants, Wasps, Bees, and Termites. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 3–33.
Blomquist, G. J. and Bagnères, A-G. (2010) Insect Hydrocarbons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 492.
Blum, M. S. (1974) Pheromonal bases of social manifestations in insects. In Birch, M. C. (ed.), Pheromones. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, pp. 190–199.
Châline, N., Sandoz, J. C., Martin, S. J., Ratnieks, F. L. W. and Jones, G. R. (2005) Learning and discrimination of individual cuticular hydrocarbons by honey bees (Apis mellifera). Chemical Senses 30: 327–333.Google Scholar
Chapuisat, M., Bernasconi, C., Hoehn, S. and Reuter, M. (2005) Nestmate recognition in the unicolonial ant Formica paralugubris. Behavioral Ecology 16: 15–19Google Scholar
Czechowski, W. (1990) Intraspecific conflict in Formica exsecta Nyl. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Memorabilia Zoologica 44: 71–81.Google Scholar
Dahbi, A., Lenoir, A.Tinaut, A.Taguizadeh, T., Francke, W. and Hefetz, A. (1996) Chemistry of the postpharyngeal gland secretion and its implication for the phylogeny of Iberian Cataglyphis species (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Chemo-ecology 7: 163–171.Google Scholar
Dani, F. R., Jones, G. R., Corsi, S., Beard, R., Pradella, D. and Turillazi, S. (2005) Nestmate recognition cues in the honey bee: differential importance of cuticular alkanes and alkenes. Chemical Senses 30: 1–13.Google Scholar
Eelen, D., Borgesen, L. and Billen, J. (2006) Functional morphology of the postpharyngeal gland of queens and workers of the ant Monomorium pharaonis (L.). Acta Zoologica 87: 101–111Google Scholar
Fielde, A. M. (1901) Further study of an ant. Proceedings of the Academe of National Sciences 53: 521–544.Google Scholar
Fielde, A. M. (1903) Supplementary notes on an ant. Proceedings of the Academe of National Sciences 55: 493.Google Scholar
Gibbs, A. G. and Crockett, E. L. (1998) Integrative and comparative aspects of lipid biology. American Zoologist 38: 265–267.Google Scholar
Gibbs, A. G. and Pomonis, J. G. (1995) Physical properties of insect cuticular hydrocarbons: the effects of chain length, methyl-branching and unsaturation. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 112B: 243–249.Google Scholar
Goropashnaya, A. V., Fedorov, V. B. and Pamilo, P. (2004) Recent speciation in the Formica rufa group ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): inference from mitochondrial DNA phylogeny. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 198–206.Google Scholar
Graham, R. A., Brand, J. M., and Markovetz, A. J. (1979) Decyl acetate synthesis in the ant Formica schaufussi (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Biochemistry 9: 331–333.Google Scholar
Guillem, R. M., Drijfhout, F. P. and Martin, S. J. (2016) Species-specific cuticular hydrocarbon stability within European Myrmica ants. Journal of Chemical Ecology 42: in press.Google Scholar
Gyllenstrand, N., Seppä, P. and Pamilo, P. (2004) Genetic differentiation in sympatric wood ants, Formica rufa and F. polyctena. Insectes Sociaux 15: 139–145.Google Scholar
Hefetz, A. (2007) The evolution of hydrocarbon pheromone parsimony in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): interplay of colony odor uniformity and odor idiosyncrasy. A review. Myrmecological News 10: 59–68.Google Scholar
Hefetz, A. and Blum, M. S. (1978) Biosynthesis of formic acid by the poison glands of Formicine ants. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – General Subjects 543: 484–496.Google Scholar
Helanterä, H., Lee, Y. R., Drijfhout, F. P. and Martin, S. J. (2011) Genetic diversity, colony chemical phenotype and nestmate recognition in the ant Formica fusca. Behavioural Ecology 22: 710–716.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. (1977) The number of queens: an important trait in ant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 64: 8–15.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. (1990) The Ants. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. (2009) The Superorganism, The Beauty, Elegance and Strangeness of Insect Societies. New York: Norton and Company Inc.
Holzer, B., Chapuisati, M., Kremer, N., Finet, C. and Keller, L. (2006) Unicoloniality, recognition and genetic differentiation in a native Formica ant. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19: 2031–2039.Google Scholar
Horstmann, K., Bitter, A. and Ulsamer, P. (1982) Nahrungsalarm bei Waldameisen (Formica polyctena Förster). Insectes Sociaux 29: 44–66.Google Scholar
Howard, R. W. and Blomquist, G. J. (2005) Ecological, behavioural and biochemical aspects of insect hydrocarbons. Annual Review of Entomology 50: 371–393.Google Scholar
Katzerke, A., Neumann, P., Pirk, C., Bliss, C. and Moritz, R. (2006) Seasonal nestmate recognition in the Formica exsecta. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61: 143–150.Google Scholar
Kern, F., Klein, R. W., Janssen, E., et al. (1997) Mellein, a trail pheromone component of the ant Lasius fuliginosus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 23: 779–792.Google Scholar
Krasnec, K. O. and Breed, M. D. (2013) Colony-specific cuticular hydrocarbon profile in Formica argentea Ants. Journal of Chemical Ecology 39: 59–66.Google Scholar
Lenoir, A., D'Ettorre, P., and Errard, C. (2001) Chemical ecology and social parasitism in ants. Annual Review of Entomology 46: 573–599.Google Scholar
Lenz, E. L., Krasnec, M. O. and Breed, M. D. (2013) Identification of undecane as an alarm pheromone of the ant Formica argentea. Journal of Insect Behavior 26: 101–108.Google Scholar
Löfqyist, J. (1976) Formic acid and saturated hydrocarbons as alarm pheromones for the ant Formica rufa. Journal of Insect Physiology 22: 1331–1346.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J. and Drijfhout, F. P. (2009a) A review of ant cuticular hydrocarbonsJournal of Chemical Ecology 35: 1151–1161.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J. and Drijfhout, F. P. (2009b) Nestmate and task cues are influenced and encoded differently within ant cuticular hydrocarbon profiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology 35: 368–374.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., Vitikainen, E., Helanterä, H. and Drijfhout, F. P. (2008a) Chemical basis of nestmate recognition in the ant Formica exsecta. Proceeding of Royal Society B 275: 1271–1278.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., Helanterä, H. and Drijfhout, F. P. (2008b) Evolution of species-specific cuticular hydrocarbon patterns in Formica ants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 95: 131–140.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., Helanterä, H. and Drijfhout, F. P. (2008c) Colony-specific hydrocarbons identify nest mates in two species of Formica ant. Journal of Chemical Ecology 34: 1072–1080.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., Takahashi, J., Ono, M. and Drijfhout, F.P. (2008d) Is the social parasite Vespa dybowskii using chemical transparency to get her eggs accepted?Journal of Insect Physiology 54: 700–707.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., Weihao, Z. and Drijfhout, F. P. (2009) Long-term stability of cuticular hydrocarbons facilitates chemotaxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 96: 732–737.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., Carruthers, J. M., Williams, P. H. and Drijfhout, F. P. (2010) Host specific social parasites (Psithyrus) indicate chemical recognition system in bumblebees. Journal of Chemical Ecology 36: 855–863.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., Vitikainen, E., Drijfhout, F. P. and Jackson, D. (2011) Conspecific ant aggression is correlated with chemical distance, but not with genetic or spatial distance. Behavioral Genetics 42: 323–331.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., Vitikainen, E., Shemilt, S., Drijfhout, F. P. and Sundström, L. (2013) Sources of variation in cuticular hydrocarbons in the ant Formica exsecta?Journal Chemical Ecology 39: 1415–1423Google Scholar
Menzel, F., Blüthgen, N. and Schmit, T. (2008) Tropical parabiotic ants: highly unusual cuticular substances and low interspecific discrimination. Frontiers in Zoology 5: 16.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. (2004) Biosynthesis in Insects. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, D. E. (2008) Chemical sorcery for sociality: exocrine secretions of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)Myrmecological News 11: 79–90.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J., Boomsma, J. J., Oldham, N. J., Petersen, H. C. and Morgan, E. D. (1999) Colony-level and season-specific variation in the cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of individual workers in the ant Formica truncorum. Insectes Sociaux 58: 58–65.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P. and Rosengren, R. (1984) Evolution of nesting strategies of ants: genetic evidence from different population types of Formica ants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21: 331–348.Google Scholar
Pirk, C. W. W., Neumann, P., Moritz, R. F. A. and Pamilo, P. (2001) Intranest relatedness and nestmate recognition in the meadow ant Formica pratensis (R.)Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49: 366–374.Google Scholar
Ozaki, M., Wada-Katsumata, A., Fujikawa, K., et al. (2005) Ant nest mate and non-nest mate discrimination by a chemosensory sensillium. Science 309: 311–315.Google Scholar
Page, M., Nelson, L. J., Haverty, M. I. and Blomquist, G. J. (1990) Cuticular hydrocarbons of eight species of North American cone beetles, Conophthorus ponderosae. Journal of Chemical Ecology 16: 1173–1198.Google Scholar
Regnier, T. E. and Wilson, E. O. (1971) Chemical communication and ‘propaganda’ in slave-making ants. Science 172: 267–269.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: 20–32.Google Scholar
Skinner, G. J. (1980) Territory, trail structure and activity patterns in the wood-ant, Formica rufa (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in limestone woodland in North-West England. Journal of Animal Ecology 49: 381–394Google Scholar
Sutton, P. A. and Rowland, S. J. (2012) High temperature gas chromatography–time-of-flight-mass spectrometry (HTGC–ToF-MS) for high-boiling compounds. Journal of Chromatography A 1243: 69–80.Google Scholar
Sutton, P. A., Wilde, M. J., Martin, S. J., et al. (2013) Studies of long chain lipids in insects by high temperature (HT) GC and HTGC-MSJournal of Chromatography A 1297: 236–240.Google Scholar
Tsuneoka, Y., and Akino, T. (2009) Repellent effect on host Formica workers of queen Dufour's gland secretion of the obligatory social parasite ant, Polyergus samurai (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 44: 133–141.Google Scholar
Vander Meer, R. K. and Morel, L. (1998) Nestmate recognition in ants. In Vander Meer, R. K., Breed, M. D., Espelie, K. E. and Winston, M. L. (eds), Pheromone Communication in Social Insects: Ants, Wasps, Bees and Termites. Boulder, CO: Westview, pp. 79–103.
Van Oystaeyen, A., Oliveira, R. C., Holman, L., et al. (2014) Conserved class of queen pheromones stops social insect workers from reproducing. Science 287: 287–90.Google Scholar
Walter, F., Fletcher, D. J. C., Chautems, D., et al. (1993) Identification of the sex pheromone of an ant Formica lugubris (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Naturwissenschaften 80: 30–34.Google Scholar
Yamaoka, R. (1990) Chemical approach to understanding interactions among organisms. Physiology and Ecology Japan 27: 31–52.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×