Skip to main content
PMC home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Jan 22;269(1487):173–178. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1860

Ant workers selfishly bias sex ratios by manipulating female development.

R L Hammond 1, M W Bruford 1, A F G Bourke 1
PMCID: PMC1690877  PMID: 11798433

Abstract

Kin selection theory predicts that social insects should perform selfish manipulations as a function of colony genetic structure. We describe a novel mechanism by which this occurs. First, we use microsatellite analyses to show that, in a population of the ant Leptothorax acervorum, workers' relatedness asymmetry (ratio of relatedness to females and relatedness to males) is significantly higher in monogynous (single-queen) colonies than in polygynous (multiple-queen) colonies. Workers rear mainly queens in monogynous colonies and males in polygynous colonies. Therefore, split sex ratios in this population are correlated with workers' relatedness asymmetry. Together with significant female bias in the population numerical and investment sex ratios, this finding strongly supports kin-selection theory. Second, by determining the primary sex ratio using microsatellite markers to sex eggs, we show that the ratio of male to female eggs is the same in both monogynous and polygynous colonies and equals the overall ratio of haploids (males) to diploids (queens and workers) among adults. In contrast to workers of species with selective destruction of male brood, L. acervorum workers therefore rear eggs randomly with respect to sex and must achieve their favoured sex ratios by selectively biasing the final caste (queen or worker) of developing females.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (121.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bourke A. F., Green H. A., Bruford M. W. Parentage, reproductive skew and queen turnover in a multiple-queen ant analysed with microsatellites. Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Feb 22;264(1379):277–283. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bourke AF, Chan GL. Queen-Worker Conflict over Sexual Production and Colony Maintenance in Perennial Social Insects. Am Nat. 1999 Oct;154(4):417–426. doi: 10.1086/303253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown W. D., Keller L. Colony sex ratios vary with queen number but not relatedness asymmetry in the ant Formica exsecta. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Sep 7;267(1454):1751–1757. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chapuis M, Keller L. Testing kin selection with sex allocation data in eusocial hymenoptera . Heredity (Edinb) 1999 May;82(Pt 5):473–478. doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6885340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Evans J. D. Parentage analyses in ant colonies using simple sequence repeat loci. Mol Ecol. 1993 Dec;2(6):393–397. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1993.tb00032.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans J. D. Relatedness threshold for the production of female sexuals in colonies of a polygynous ant, Myrmica tahoensis, as revealed by microsatellite DNA analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Jul 3;92(14):6514–6517. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.14.6514. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Foster K. R., Ratnieks F. L. Facultative worker policing in a wasp. Nature. 2000 Oct 12;407(6805):692–693. doi: 10.1038/35037665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hamilton W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):17–52. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hammond R. L., Bourke A. F., Bruford M. W. Mating frequency and mating system of the polygynous ant, Leptothorax acervorum. Mol Ecol. 2001 Nov;10(11):2719–2728. doi: 10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01394.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Nonacs P., Carlin N. F. When can ants discriminate the sex of brood? A new aspect of queen-worker conflict. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Dec 15;87(24):9670–9673. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.24.9670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  12. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  13. Passera L., Aron S., Vargo E. L., Keller L. Queen control of sex ratio in fire ants. Science. 2001 Aug 17;293(5533):1308–1310. doi: 10.1126/science.1062076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sundstrom L, Chapuisat M, Keller L. Conditional Manipulation of Sex Ratios by Ant Workers: A Test of Kin Selection Theory. Science. 1996 Nov 8;274(5289):993–995. doi: 10.1126/science.274.5289.993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Trivers R. L., Hare H. Haploidploidy and the evolution of the social insect. Science. 1976 Jan 23;191(4224):249–263. doi: 10.1126/science.1108197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES