Skip to main content
PMC home page
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2003 Oct 29;358(1438):1741–1753. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1262

Power over reproduction in social hymenoptera.

Madeleine Beekman 1, Francis L W Ratnieks 1
PMCID: PMC1693269  PMID: 14561330

Abstract

Inclusive fitness theory has been very successful in predicting and explaining much of the observed variation in the reproductive characteristics of insect societies. For example, the theory correctly predicts sex-ratio biasing by workers in relation to the queen's mating frequency. However, within an insect society there are typically multiple reproductive optima, each corresponding to the interest of different individual(s) or parties of interest. When multiple optima occur, which party's interests prevail? Presumably, the interests of the party with the greatest 'power'; the ability to do or act. This article focuses on factors that influence power over colony reproduction. In particular, we seek to identify the principles that may cause different parties of interest to have greater or lesser power. In doing this, we discuss power from two different angles. On the one hand, we discuss general factors based upon non-idiosyncratic biological features (e.g. information, access to and ability to process food) that are likely to be important to all social Hymenoptera. On the other hand, we discuss idiosyncratic factors that depend upon the biology of a taxon at any hierarchical level. We propose that a better understanding of the diversity of reproductive characteristics of insect societies will come from combining inclusive fitness theory with a wide range of other factors that affect relative power in a conflict situation.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (269.3 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Alexander R. D., Sherman P. W. Local mate competition and parental investment in social insects. Science. 1977 Apr 29;196(4289):494–500. doi: 10.1126/science.196.4289.494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baer B., Morgan E. D., Schmid-Hempel P. A nonspecific fatty acid within the bumblebee mating plug prevents females from remating. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Mar 13;98(7):3926–3928. doi: 10.1073/pnas.061027998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernasconi G, Strassmann JE. Cooperation among unrelated individuals: the ant foundress case. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Dec;14(12):477–482. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01722-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourke A. F., Ratnieks F. L. Kin-selected conflict in the bumble-bee Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Feb 22;268(1465):347–355. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cremer Sylvia, Heinze Jürgen. Adaptive production of fighter males: queens of the ant Cardiocondyla adjust the sex ratio under local mate competition. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Feb 22;269(1489):417–422. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Estoup A., Scholl A., Pouvreau A., Solignac M. Monoandry and polyandry in bumble bees (Hymenoptera; Bombinae) as evidenced by highly variable microsatellites. Mol Ecol. 1995 Feb;4(1):89–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1995.tb00195.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Foster K. R., Ratnieks F. L. Convergent evolution of worker policing by egg eating in the honeybee and common wasp. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Jan 22;268(1463):169–174. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Foster K. R., Ratnieks F. L., Raybould A. F. Do hornets have zombie workers? Mol Ecol. 2000 Jun;9(6):735–742. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00920.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Haig D. Intragenomic conflict and the evolution of eusociality. J Theor Biol. 1992 Jun 7;156(3):401–403. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80683-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hamilton W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hammond R. L., Bruford M. W., Bourke A. F. G. Ant workers selfishly bias sex ratios by manipulating female development. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jan 22;269(1487):173–178. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Helms KR, Fewell JH, Rissing SW. Sex ratio determination by queens and workers in the ant Pheidole desertorum. Anim Behav. 2000 Mar;59(3):523–527. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hurst L. D., Atlan A., Bengtsson B. O. Genetic conflicts. Q Rev Biol. 1996 Sep;71(3):317–364. doi: 10.1086/419442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  17. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  18. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  19. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1997.0179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Queller David C., Strassmann Joan E. The many selves of social insects. Science. 2002 Apr 12;296(5566):311–313. doi: 10.1126/science.1070671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Sundström L., Boomsma J. J. Reproductive alliances and posthumous fitness enhancement in male ants. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Jul 22;267(1451):1439–1444. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. West Stuart A., Sheldon Ben C. Constraints in the evolution of sex ratio adjustment. Science. 2002 Jan 31;295(5560):1685–1688. doi: 10.1126/science.1069043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES