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: 2025-01-27T22:04:04.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Population genetics of wood ants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

By
Pekka Pamilo ,
Perttu Seppä  and
Heikki Helanterä
Edited by
Jenni A. Stockan  and
Elva J. H. Robinson
Pekka Pamilo
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
Perttu Seppä
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
Heikki Helanterä
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
Jenni A. Stockan
Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute
Elva J. H. Robinson
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

Discussions of queen dispersal and adoption of new queens by own versus alien colonies in Formica rufa played an important role in the early theoretical studies of social evolution (Sturtevant 1938; Williams and Williams 1957). This was inspired by polygyny affecting the genetic relationships among nestmates, which are estimated today by use of genetic markers (Box 3.1). Demography and population dynamics also shape the whole genetic landscape of ant populations, and genetic studies can be used to trace such events. Finally, even long-term processes leave their genetic signatures, and the genome-wide variation patterns support the hypothesis that ants tend to have small effective population sizes and increased genetic loads, resembling vertebrates more than other invertebrates in this respect (Romiguier et al. 2014). Even though this conclusion is general and based only on very few species, it emphasises biological characteristics important for ant populations also in the context of conservation.

Molecular markers

Genetic markers are used to estimate the level and distribution of genetic variation in populations and societies. Optimal genetic markers are: (1) not influenced by environment or developmental stages, (2) randomly distributed across the genome, (3) codominant and (4) selectively neutral, but none of the markers in use fulfil all these requirements (Lowe et al. 2004). Genetic markers are used to resolve phylogenetic relationships at different hierarchical levels: among species, among conspecific populations at large geographic scales, among potentially interconnected conspecific populations and among individuals (Avise 2004). In social insects, studies at the first two levels are not different from other organisms: spatial distribution of genetic variability is first assessed and then interpreted based on geological and climatological history. On the other hand, analyses of colony kin structure and spatial population structure are, at least to some extent, idiosyncratic to social insects and need a more detailed introduction (Box 3.2).

Marker types

In the 1960s, the first molecular polymorphisms employed as genetic markers were enzymes, widely used because of low costs and the ease of use. Allozyme polymorphism is based on the variation in the net charge of enzymes involved in basic metabolism. As only a small fraction of mutations (9%) lead to a change in the net charge of the amino acid chain, allozymes tend to be only weakly polymorphic.

Type
Chapter
Information
Wood Ant Ecology and Conservation , pp. 51 - 80
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

Avise, J. C. (2004) Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution, 2nd edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Bargum, K. and Sundström, L. (2007) Multiple breeders, breeder shifts and inclusive fitness returns in an ant. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274: 1547–1551.Google Scholar
Berg, L. M., Lascoux, M. and Pamilo, P. (1998) The infinite island model with sex-differentiated gene flow. Heredity 81: 63–68.Google Scholar
Bernasconi, C., Maeder, A., Cherix, D. and Pamilo, P. (2005) Diversity and genetic structure of the wood ant Formica lugubris in unmanaged forests. Annales Zoologici Fennici 42: 189–199.Google Scholar
Bernasconi, C., Pamilo, P. and Cherix, D. (2010) Molecular markers allow sibling species identification in red wood ants (Formica rufa group). Systematic Entomology 35: 243–249.Google Scholar
Bernasconi, C., Cherix, D., Seifert, B. and Pamilo, P. (2011) Molecular taxonomy of the Formica rufa group (red wood ants) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a new cryptic species in the Swiss Alps?Myrmecological News 14: 37–47.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. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 43: 67–72.Google Scholar
Boomsma, J. J. and Grafen, A. (1990) Intraspecific variation in ant sex ratios and the Trivers–Hare hypothesis. Evolution 44: 1026–1034.Google Scholar
Chapuisat, M. (1996) Characterization of microsatellite loci in Formica lugubris B and their variability in other ant species. Molecular Ecology 5: 599–601.Google Scholar
Chapuisat, M. (1998) Mating frequency of ant queens with alternative dispersal strategies, as revealed by microsatellite analysis of sperm. Molecular Ecology 7: 1097–1105.Google Scholar
Chapuisat, M. and Keller, L. (1999) Extended family structure in the ant Formica paralugubris: the role of the breeding system. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 46: 405–412.Google Scholar
Chapuisat, M., Goudet, J. and Keller, L. (1997) Microsatellites reveal high population viscosity and limited dispersal in the ant Formica paralugubris. Evolution 51: 475–482.Google Scholar
Corander, J., Waldmann, P., Marttinen, P. and Sillanpää, M. (2004) BAPS 2: enhanced possibilities for the analysis of genetic population structure. Bioinformatics 20: 2363–2369.Google Scholar
Crozier, R.H. and Pamilo, P. (1996) Evolution of Social Insect Colonies. Sex Allocation and Kin Selection. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Czechowski, W. (1993) Hybrids in red wood ants. Annales Zoologici 44: 43–53.Google Scholar
Czechowski, W. and Douwes, P. (1996) Morphometric characteristics of Formica polyctena Foerst. and Formica rufa L. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Gorce Mts; interspecific and intraspecific variations. Annales Zoologici 46: 125–141.Google Scholar
Czechowski, W. and Radchenko, A. (2006) Do permanently mixed colonies of wood ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) really exist?Annales Zoologici 56: 667–673.Google Scholar
Debout, G., Schatz, B., Elias, M. and Mckey, D. (2007) Polydomy in ants: what we know, what we think we know, and what remains to be done. 2007. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 90: 319–348Google Scholar
Elias, M., Rosengren, R. and Sundström, L. (2005) Seasonal polydomy and unicoloniality in a polygynous population of the red wood ant Formica truncorum. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57: 339–349.Google Scholar
Ellis, S. and Robinson, E. J. H. (2014) Polydomy in red wood ants. Insectes Sociaux 61: 111–122.Google Scholar
Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E. and Quattro, J. M. (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131: 479–491.Google Scholar
Fernández-Escudero, I., Pamilo, P. and Seppä, P. (2002) Biased sperm use by polyandrous queens of the ant Proformica longiseta. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51: 207–213.Google Scholar
Goropashnaya, A. (2003) Phylogeographic structure and genetic variation in Formica ants. Ph.D. dissertation, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Goropashnaya, A.V., Fedorov, V.B. and Pamilo, P. (2004a) Recent speciation in the Formica rufa group ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): inference from mitochondrial DNA phylogeny. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 198–206.Google Scholar
Goropashnaya, A.V., Fedorov, V. B., Seifert, B. and Pamilo, P. (2004b) Limited phylogeographic structure across Eurasia in two red wood ant species Formica pratensis and F. lugubris (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Molecular Ecology 13: 1849–1858.Google Scholar
Goropashnaya, A. V., Fedorov, V. B., Seifert, B. and Pamilo, P. (2012) Phylogenetic relationships of palaearctic Formica species (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) based on mitochondrial cytochrome b Sequences. PLoS One 7: 7 (e41697).Google Scholar
Gösswald, K., Kneitz, G. and Schirmer, G. (1965) Die geographische Verbreitung der hügelbauenden Formica-Arten (Hym., Formicidae) in Europa. Zoologische Jahrbücher Systematik 92: 369–404.Google Scholar
Guillot, G., Leblois, R., Coulon, A. and Frantz, A. C. (2009) Statistical methods in spatial genetics. Molecular Ecology 18: 4734–4756.Google Scholar
Gyllenstrand, N. and Seppä, P. (2003) Conservation genetics of the ant, Formica lugubris, in a fragmented landscape. Molecular Ecology 12: 2931–2940.Google Scholar
Gyllenstrand, N., Gertsch, P. J. and Pamilo, P. (2002) Polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers in the ant Formica exsecta. Molecular Ecology Notes 2: 67–69.Google Scholar
Gyllenstrand, N., Seppä, P. and Pamilo, P. (2004) Genetic differentiation in sympatric wood ants, Formica rufa and F. polyctena. Insectes Sociaux 51: 139–145.Google Scholar
Gyllenstrand, N., Seppä, P. and Pamilo, P. (2005) Restricted gene flow between two social forms in the ant Formica truncorum. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 978–984.Google Scholar
Haapaniemi, K. and Pamilo, P. (2012) Reproductive conflicts in polyandrous and polygynous ant Formica sanguinea. Molecular Ecology 21: 421–430.Google Scholar
Hale, M. L., Burg, T. M. and Steeves, T. E. (2012) Sampling for microsatellite-based population genetic studies: 25 to 30 individuals per population is enough to accurately estimate allele frequencies. PLoS One 7: 9, e45170.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W.D. (1964) The genetical evolution of social behavior I. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–16.Google Scholar
Hannonen, M., Helanterä, H. and Sundström, L. (2004) Habitat age, breeding system and kinship in the ant Formica fusca. Molecular Ecology 13: 1579–1588.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, E. and Imai, S. (2004) Characterization of microsatellite loci in red wood ants Formica (s. str.) spp. and the related genus Polyergus. Molecular Ecology Notes 4: 200–203.Google Scholar
Helanterä, H. and Sundström, L. (2007) Worker reproduction in Formica ants. American Naturalist 170: E14–E25.Google Scholar
Helanterä, H., Strassmann, J. E., Carillo, J. and Queller, D. C. (2009) Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24: 342–349.Google Scholar
Higashi, S. (1976) Nest proliferation by budding and nest growth pattern in Formica (Formica) yessensis in Ishikari Shore. Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Series 6, Zoology 20: 359–389.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O. (1990) The Ants. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Holzer, B., Chapuisat, 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
Holzer, B.Meunier, J., Keller, L. and Chapuisat, M. (2008) Stay or drift? Queen acceptance in the ant Formica paralugubris. Insectes Sociaux 55: 392–396.Google Scholar
Holzer, B., Keller, L. and Chapuisat, M. (2009) Genetic clusters and sex biased gene flow in a unicolonial Formica ant. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9: 69.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P., Uller, T., Helanterä, H. (2014) Are ant supercolonies crucibles of a new major transition in evolution?Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27: 784–796.Google Scholar
Kidokoro-Kobayashi, M., Iwakura, M., Fujiwara-Tsujii, N., et al. (2012) Chemical discrimination and aggressiveness via cuticular hydrocarbons in a supercolony-forming ant, Formica yessensis. PLoS One 7: e46840Google Scholar
Korczyska, J., Gajewska, M., Pilot, M., Czechowski, W. and Radchenko, A. (2010) Genetic polymorphism in ‘mixed’ colonies of wood ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in southern Finland and its possible origin. European Journal of Entomology 107: 157–167.Google Scholar
Kulmuni, J. and Pamilo, P. (2014) Introgression in hybrid ants is favored in females but selected against in males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 111: 12805–12810.Google Scholar
Kulmuni, J., Seifert, B. and Pamilo, P. (2010) Segregation distortion causes large-scale differences between male and female genomes in hybrid ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 107: 7371–7376.Google Scholar
Kümmerli, R. and Keller, L. (2007) Extreme reproductive specialization within ant colonies: some queens produce males whereas others produce workers. Animal Behavior 74: 1535–1543.Google Scholar
Lowe, A., Harris, S. and Ashton, P. (2004) Ecological Genetics. Design, Analysis and Application. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
McIver, J. D., Torgelsen, T. R. and Cimon, N. J. (1997) A supercolony of the thatch ant Formica obscuripes Forel (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from the Blue Mountains of Oregon. Northwest Science 71: 18–29.Google Scholar
Mäki-Petäys, H. and Breen, J. (2007) Genetic vulnerability of a remnant ant population. Conservation Genetics 8: 427–435.Google Scholar
Mäki-Petäys, H., Zakharov, A., Viljakainen, L., Corander, J. and Pamilo, P. (2005) Genetic changes associated to declining populations of Formica ants in fragmented forest landscape. Molecular Ecology 14: 733–742.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P. (1982) Genetic population structure in polygynous Formica ants. Heredity 48: 95–106.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P. (1984) Genotypic correlation and regression in social groups: multiple alleles, multiple loci and subdivided populations. Genetics 107: 307–320.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P. (1985) Effect of inbreeding on genetic relatedness. Hereditas 103: 195–200.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P. (1987) Population genetics of the Formica rufa group. In Eder, M J., and Rembold, H. (eds), Chemistry and Biology of Social Insects. Munich: Verlag J. Peperny, pp. 68–70.
Pamilo, P. (1993) Polyandry and allele frequency differences between the sexes in the ant Formica aquilonia. Heredity 70: 472–480.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P. and Rosengren, R. (1983) Sex ratio strategies in Formica ants. Oikos 40: 24–35.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 Linnaean Society 21: 331–348.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P., Chautems, D. and Cherix, D. (1992) Genetic differentiation of disjunct populations of the ants Formica aquilonia and Formica lugubris in Europe. Insectes Sociaux 39: 15–29.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P., Sundström, L., Fortelius, W. and Rosengren, R. (1994) Diploid males and colony-level selection in Formica ants. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 6: 221–235.Google Scholar
Pamilo, P, Zhu, D., Fortelius, W., Rosengren, R., Seppä, P. and Sundström, L. (2005) Genetic patchwork of network-building wood ant populations. Annales Zoologici Fennici 42: 179–187.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, A., Anastasiou, A. and Vogler, A. P. (2010) Revisiting the insect mitochondrial molecular clock: the mid-Aegean trench calibration. Molecular Biology and Evolution 27: 1659–1672.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
Pritchard, J.K., Stephens, M. and Donnelly, P. (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155: 945–959.Google Scholar
Queller, D.C. (1993) Genetic relatedness and its components in polygynous colonies of social insects. In Keller, L. (ed.), Queen Number and Sociality in Insects. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 132–152.
Queller, D. C., Strassmann, J. E. and Hughes, C. R. (1993) Microsatellites and kinship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 285–288.Google Scholar
Romiguier, J., Lourenco, J., Gayral, P., et al. (2014) Population genomics of eusocial insects: the costs of a vertebrate-like effective population size. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27: 593–603.Google Scholar
Rosengren, R. (1969) Notes regarding the growth of a polycalic nest system in Formica uralensis Ruzsky. Notulae Entomologicae 49: 1–230.Google Scholar
Rosengren, R. and Pamilo, P. (1983) The evolution of polygyny and polydomy in mound building Formica ants. Acta Entomologica Fennica 42: 65–77.Google Scholar
Rosengren, R., Sundström, L. and Fortelius, W. (1993) Monogyny and polygyny in Formica ants: the result of alternative dispersal tactics. In Keller, L. (ed), Queen Number and Sociality in Insects. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 308–333.
Ross, K.G. (1993) The breeding system of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta: effects on colony genetic structure. American Naturalist 141: 554–576.Google Scholar
Ross, K. G., Vargo, E. L. and Keller, L. (1996) Social evolution in a new environment: the case of introduced fire ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 93: 3021–3025.Google Scholar
Savolainen, R. and Vepsäläinen, K. (1988) A competition hierarchy among boreal ants: impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51: 135–155.Google Scholar
Savolainen, R., Vepsäläinen, K. and Wuorenrinne, H. (1989) Ant assemblages in the taiga biome: testing the role of territorial wood ants. Oecologia 81: 481–486.Google Scholar
Schultner, E. (2014) Cannibalism and conflict in Formica ants. PhD thesis, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Seifert, B. (1991) The phenotypes of the Formica rufa complex in East Germany. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Naturkundemuseums Görlitz 65: 1–27.Google Scholar
Seifert, B. (1996) Formica paralugubris nov. spec.: a sympatric sibling species of Formica lugubris from the westen Alps (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicoidea: Formicidae). Reichenbachia 31: 193–201.Google Scholar
Seifert, B. (2003) The ‘Hippie Ant’: a case of extreme intranidal polymorphism in Fennoscandian Formica lugubris Zetterstedt 1838 (Hymenoptera:Formicidae). Sociobiology 42: 285–297.Google Scholar
Seifert, B. (2007) Die Ameisen Mittel- und Nordeuropas. Tauer, Germany: Lutra Verlags und Vertriebsgesellshaft.
Seifert, B. (2010) Intranidal mating, gyne polymorphism, polygyny, and supercoloniality as factors for sympatric and parapatric speciation in ants. Ecological Entomology 35: 33–40.Google Scholar
Seifert, B. and Goropashnaya, A. (2004) Ideal phenotypes and mismatching haplotypes: errors of mtDNA treeing in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) detected by standardized morphometry. Organisms Diversity and Evolution 4: 295–305.Google Scholar
Seifert, B., Kulmuni, J. and Pamilo, P. (2010) Independent hybrid populations of Formica polyctena × rufa wood ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) abound under conditions of forest fragmentation. Evolutionary Ecology 24: 1219–1237.Google Scholar
Seppä, P. (1994) Sociogenetic organization of Myrmica ruginodis and Myrmica lobicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) colonies and populations: number, relatedness and longevity of reproducing individuals. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 7: 71–95.Google Scholar
Seppä, P. (2008) Do ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) need conservation and does ant conservation need genetics?Myrmecological News 11: 161–172.Google Scholar
Seppä, P. and Pamilo, P. (1995) Gene flow and population viscosity in Myrmica ants. Heredity 74: 200–209.Google Scholar
Seppä, P., Gyllenstrand, N., Corander, J. and Pamilo, P. (2004) Coexistence of the social types: genetic population structure in the ant Formica exsecta. Evolution 58: 2462–2471.Google Scholar
Sorvari, J. (2006) Two distinct morphs in the wood ant Formica polyctena in Finland: a result of hybridization?Entomologica Fennica 17: 1–17.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, A. H. (1938) Essays on evolution II. On the effects of selection on social insects. Quarterly Review of Biology 13: 74–76.Google Scholar
Sundström, L. (1993) Genetic population structure and sociogenetic organization in Formica truncorum (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 33: 345–354.Google Scholar
Sundström, L. (1994) Sex ratio bias, relatedness asymmetry and queen mating frequency in ants. Nature 367: 266–268.Google Scholar
Sundström, L. (1995) Dispersal polymorphism and physiological condition of males and females in the ant Formica truncorum. Behavioral Ecology 6: 132–139.Google Scholar
Sundström, L. (1997) Queen acceptance and nestmate recognition in monogyne and polygyne colonies of the ant Formica truncorum. Animal Behaviour 53: 499–510.Google Scholar
Sundström, L., Chapuisat, M. and Keller, L. (1996) Conditional manipulation of sex ratios by ant workers: a test of kin selection theory. Science 274: 993–995.Google Scholar
Sundström, L., Seppä, P. and Pamilo, P. (2005) Genetic population structure and dispersal patterns in Formica ants: a review. Annales Zoologici Fennici 42: 163–177Google Scholar
Thomas, M. L., Payne-Makrisâ, C. M., Suarez, A. V., Tsutsui, N. D. and Holway, D.A. (2006) When supercolonies collide: territorial aggression in an invasive and unicolonial social insect. Molecular Ecology 15: 4303–4315.Google Scholar
Vanhala, T., Watts, K., A'Hara, S. and Cottrell, J. (2014) Population genetics of Formica aquilonia wood ants in Scotland: the effects of long-term forest fragmentation and recent reforestation. Conservation Genetics 15: 853–868.Google Scholar
Vepsäläinen, K. and Pisarski, B. (1981) The taxonomy of the Formica rufa group: chaos before order. In Howse, P. E. and Clément, J.-L. (eds), Biosystematics of Social Insects. London: Academic Press, pp. 27–35.
Viljakainen, L., Reuter, M. and Pamilo, P. (2008) Wolbachia transmission dynamics in Formica wood ants. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 55Google Scholar
Wang, J. (2014) Marker-based estimates of relatedness and inbreeding coefficients: an assessment of current methods. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27: 518–530.Google Scholar
Welch, R. C. (1978) Changes in the distribution of the nests of Formica rufa L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) at Blean Woods National Nature Reserve, Kent, during the decade following coppicing. Insectes Sociaux 25: 173–186.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. and Williams, D. C. (1957) Natural selection of individually harmful social adaptations among sibs with special reference to social insects. Evolution 11: 32–39.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O. (1971) The Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wright, S. (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16: 97–159.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28: 114–138.Google Scholar
Zayed, A. and Packer, L. (2005) Complementary sex determination substantially increases extinction proneness of haplodiploid populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 102: 10742–10746.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
×