Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Molecules logoLink to Molecules
. 2020 Apr 30;25(9):2112. doi: 10.3390/molecules25092112

Overlooked Scents: Chemical Profile of Soma, Volatile Emissions and Trails of the Green Tree Ant, Oecophylla smaragdina

Vivek Kempraj 1,*, Soo Jean Park 1, Stefano De Faveri 2, Phillip W Taylor 1
PMCID: PMC7249187  PMID: 32365972

Abstract

The green tree ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, is one of only two recognized species of weaver ants. While the identity and functions of chemicals produced and emitted by its congener O. longinoda have been studied quite extensively and serve as a valuable model in chemical ecology research, little comparable information is available about O. smaragdina. Although some analyses of chemicals produced and emitted by O. smaragdina have been reported, the literature is fragmentary and incomplete for this species. To address this knowledge gap, and to enable comparisons in the chemical ecology of the two weaver ant species, we here describe diverse chemicals from the cuticle, Dufour’s glands, poison glands, head, headspace volatiles, and trails of O. smaragdina.

Keywords: Oecophylla smaragdina, cuticular hydrocarbons, headspace volatiles, chemical ecology

1. Introduction

The weaver ants comprise two recognized species: [1] Oecophylla longinoda, which is mainly found in the tropical regions of Africa and [2] O. smaragdina (green tree ant), which is found in the tropical regions of India, Southeast Asia, and Australia. Oecophylla longinoda has been the subject of extensive research over many decades, including significant focus on its chemical ecology [1]. This species’ socio-chemical system [2,3,4], glandular chemicals [5,6], trail pheromone [3], territorial pheromone [2], and alarm/communication system including volatiles in Dufour and poison glands [6,7,8] have all been well-documented. In contrast, while observations suggest a similar importance of olfaction-mediated behavior in O. smaragdina, very little is known about the identity or function of chemicals produced and released by this species [1,9,10]. The few existing studies of O. smaragdina chemical profile are restricted to Dufour’s glands, mandibular glands [11], head, and the gaster [12]. However, these studies are mostly based on small sample size (n = 2 to 6) [11] or relied on crude extracts [12]. Studies of cuticular chemistry have considered chemical mimicry of O. smaragdina by spiders, but the extraction method was reliable mainly for heavy cuticular hydrocarbons and was inefficient for lighter compounds that tend to be important for communication [13,14]. Major workers make up 90% of a O. smaragdina colony and are the communication line between the nest and the external environment. Here we present a comprehensive chemical profile of the major workers of O. smaragdina.

2. Results and Discussion

Previous studies of O. smaragdina chemical ecology have yielded a fragmentary and incomplete knowledge of the compounds produced and emitted by this ecologically and economically important ant species [15,16,17]. We identified a total of 59 compounds from the cuticle, Dufour’s gland, poison gland, head, headspace volatiles, and trails of O. smaragdina workers, including aldehydes, alcohols, carboxylic acid, esters, fatty acids, terpenes and hydrocarbons (Figure 1). This analysis provides essential foundations for functional studies investigating the role of specific compounds, as well as investigation of regional and colony variation in chemical profile.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Composition of compounds isolated from the green tree ant, Oecophylla smaragdina. The dominant components were hydrocarbons, with other compounds being less abundant.

2.1. Identification of Compounds from Cuticle of Oecophylla Smaragdina

Cuticular extracts contained several straight and methyl branched hydrocarbons (89%), esters (6%), terpene (3%), and alcohols (3%). An ant’s cuticle usually contains between 5 and 50 complex chemical compounds, but in extreme cases may contain hundreds of compounds [18]. In addition to having a wide range of cuticular compounds to protect against dehydration [18,19], ants also make extensive use of cuticular compounds for inter and intra-species communication [20,21,22,23]. The reliance on odor for nestmate recognition can make ants vulnerable to exploitation by enemies. For example, a salticid spider, Cosmophasis bitaeniata, has evolved an ability to mimic cuticular compounds of O. smaragdina in order to avoid detection by ants while foraging on ant larvae [14]. This study reported 14 straight and branched hydrocarbons from O. smaragdina cuticles but had overlooked lighter compounds that may be crucial in inter and intra-specific communication. We detected 31 hydrocarbons (Table 1) with undecane, heneicosane, and tricosane being the major compounds. We employed a shorter extraction time (10 s) compared to (10 min extraction + 1 min agitation) in order to extract lighter cuticular compounds that were overlooked previously [14]. The previous study mainly focused on heavier hydrocarbons C29 to C37 [14]. We also found two wax esters, namely hexyl formate and octyl formate (Table 1), that were not reported previously. Wax esters are major constituents of cuticular lipids in most insects [24]. Although they may serve a variety of biological functions, their major function is to reduce evaporative water loss [25,26,27]. A terpene, limonene was present at low concentrations (0.02%) in the cuticular extract. Keegans et al. has previously reported the presence of limonene in the Dufour and mandibular glands of O. smaragdina [11]. Ants allogroom nest mates to keep the colony free from disease [28], and these compounds were likely dispersed over the ant’s cuticle during allogrooming [28]. An alcohol, 1-Octanol, was also found in the cuticule of O. smaragdina and having been identified previously in the mandibular glands of O. smaragdina, likely also was transferred to the cuticle during allogrooming [11].

Table 1.

Cuticular compounds (CCs) isolated from workers of Oecophylla smaragdina.

Compounds MW RT (min) RI Lit. RI [Ref] ECL Content (%)
(Mean ± SE)
Formic acid hexyl ester 130.18 5.02 929 927 [29] 9.29 1.41 ± 0.29
Decane 142.28 6.15 1004 11.04 0.69 ± 0.10
Limonene 136.23 6.63 1035 1044 [30] 10.35 0.02 ± 0.001
1-Octanol 130.23 7.22 1073 1068 [31] 10.73 0.05 ± 0.01
1-Undecene 154.29 7.53 1093 1090 [32] 10.93 0.10 ± 0.02
Undecane 156.31 7.67 1101 11.01 38.12 ± 3.72
Formic acid, octyl ester 158.24 8.12 1131 1110 [33] 11.31 0.16 ± 0.04
Dodecane 170.33 9.17 1201 12.01 0.68 ± 0.11
1-Tridecene 182.35 10.39 1288 1288 [32] 12.88 0.51 ± 0.08
Tridecane 184.36 10.58 1301 13.01 5.65 ± 0.83
Tetradecane 198.39 11.92 1401 14.01 0.11 ± 0.02
Pentadecane 212.41 13.19 1501 15.01 4.18 ± 0.66
Hexadecane 226.44 14.39 1601 16.01 0.16 ± 0.02
Heptadecane 240.48 15.53 1701 17.01 5.69 ± 0.88
Nonadecane 268.52 17.64 1901 19.01 1.21 ± 0.20
Eicosane 282.55 18.62 2001 20.01 0.45 ± 0.07
Heneicosane 296.57 19.56 2101 21.01 11.08 ± 1.62
Docosane 310.61 20.46 2201 22.01 3.20 ± 0.45
Tricosene isomer 322.61 21.15 2280 22.80 0.32 ± 0.06
Tricosane 324.63 21.32 2297 22.97 19.84 ± 2.70
Tetracosane 338.65 22.14 2401 24.01 0.13 ± 0.02
Pentacosene isomer 350.66 22.74 2475 24.75 0.32 ± 0.06
Pentacosane 352.68 22.95 2501 25.01 0.55 ± 0.07
1-Heptacosene 378.72 24.24 2672 2688 [34] 26.72 0.31 ± 0.06
Heptacosane 380.73 24.46 2701 27.01 0.39 ± 0.05
1-Nonacosene 406.77 25.92 2870 2888 [34] 28.70 0.27 ± 0.06
Nonacosane 408.79 26.20 2901 29.01 1.17 ± 0.20
11-; 13-; 15-Methylnonacosane 422.81 26.47 2930 2932 [14] 29.30 0.12 ± 0.02
Triacontane 422.81 27.23 3002 30.02 0.06 ± 0.01
Hentriacontane 436.84 28.38 3104 31.04 1.24 ± 0.21
11-; 13-; 15-Methylhentriacontane 450.87 28.67 3127 3135 [14] 31.27 0.49 ± 0.11
12,16-Dimethyldotriacontane 478.92 30.28 3251 3157 [14] 32.51 0.37 ± 0.12
13-; 15-; 16-Methyltritriacontane 478.92 31.36 3326 3335 [14] 33.26 0.49 ± 0.15
13,17-Dimehtyltritriacontane 492.95 31.72 3350 3364 [14] 33.50 0.45 ± 0.07
Open in a new tab

MW: Molecular weight; RT (min): Retention time in minutes; RI: Retention index; Lit. RI [Ref]: Literature retention Index; SE: Standard error; ECL: Equivalent chain length (ECL = RI/100).

2.2. Identification of Compounds from Dufour’s Gland and Poison Gland

Dufour’s glands and poison glands contained a mixture of hydrocarbons (92% and 93%, respectively) and alcohols (8% and 7%, respectively). However, the concentration of individual compounds varied. Undecane (27.45%), heneicosane (16.07%), and tricosane (25.83%) were the dominant hydrocarbons and 1-Heptadecanol was the only alcohol present in the Dufour glands (Table 2 and Table 3). However, poison glands contained undecane (52.68%) as the largest component followed by tricosane (15.65%) and heneicosane (5.89%). Previous work on secretions from Dufour’s gland in O. smaragdina [11] reported undecane (41.4%) and heneicosane (13.8%) as the major compounds, whereas tricosane was reported in small amounts. While there are no previous studies of compounds from poison glands of O. smaragdina, studies of O. longinoda reported undecane (25–28%) to be the major compound [7]. While functions have not been investigated in O. smaragdina, Dufour’s and poison glands are central to the alarm system of O. longinoda. Chemicals secreted by these glands are used in combination for communication, territory and trail marking, and alarm signals [6]. For example, the alarm volatiles of O. longinoda consists of a blend n-undecane from Dufour’s glands and formic acid from the poison gland. The main components from the two glands act synergistically to elicit an alarm reaction in O. longinoda [6,7].

Table 2.

Compounds isolated from Dufour’s gland of workers of Oecophylla smaragdina.

Compounds MW RT (min) RI Lit. RI [Ref] ECL Content (%)
(Mean ± SE)
Decane 142.28 6.15 1104 11.04 1.02 ± 0.17
1-Undecene 154.29 7.53 1093 1090 [30] 10.93 tr
Undecane 156.31 7.67 1101 11.01 27.45 ± 3.98
Dodecane 170.33 9.17 1201 12.01 1.11 ± 0.19
1-Tridecene 182.35 10.39 1288 1288 [31] 12.88 tr
Tridecane 184.36 10.58 1301 13.01 7.21 ± 1.71
Pentadecane 212.41 13.19 1501 15.01 5.54 ± 1.26
Heptadecane 240.48 15.53 1701 17.01 8.72 ± 1.52
nonadecane 268.52 17.64 1901 19.01 2.15 ± 0.35
1-Heptadecanol 256.47 18.03 1941 1941 [35] 19.41 0.44 ± 0.06
Heneicosane 296.57 19.56 2101 21.01 16.07 ± 3.07
Docosane 310.61 20.46 2201 22.01 4.45 ± 0.86
Tricosane 324.63 21.32 2297 22.97 25.83 ± 4.01
Open in a new tab

MW: Molecular weight; RT (min): Retention time in minutes; RI: Retention index; Lit. RI [Ref]: Literature retention Index; SE: Standard error; ECL: Equivalent chain length (ECL = RI/100).

Table 3.

Compounds isolated from poison gland of workers of Oecophylla smaragdina.

Compounds MW RT (min) RI Lit. RI [Ref] ECL Content (%)
(Mean ± SE)
Decane 142.28 6.15 1104 11.04 0.48 ± 0.11
1-Undecene 154.29 7.53 1093 1090 [30] 10.93 tr
Undecane 156.31 7.67 1101 11.01 52.68 ± 12.10
Dodecane 170.33 9.17 1201 12.01 0.52 ± 0.12
1-Tridecene 182.35 10.39 1288 1288 [31] 12.88 0.31 ± 0.01
Tridecane 184.36 10.58 1301 13.01 4.38 ± 0.97
Pentadecene isomer NA 13.01 1499 14.99 tr
Pentadecane 212.41 13.19 1501 15.01 3.18 ± 0.68
Heptadecane 240.48 15.53 1701 17.01 5.06 ± 1.05
nonadecane 268.52 17.64 1901 19.01 1.25 ± 0.25
1-Heptadecanol 256.47 18.03 1941 1288 [31] 19.41 4.10 ± 0.99
Heneicosane 296.57 19.56 2101 21.01 5.89 ± 1.79
Docosane 310.61 20.46 2201 22.01 1.70 ± 0.52
Tricosane 324.63 21.32 2297 22.97 15.65 ± 3.02
Open in a new tab

MW: Molecular weight; RT (min): Retention time in minutes; RI: Retention index; Lit. RI [Ref]: Literature retention Index; SE: Standard error; ECL: Equivalent chain length (ECL = RI/100).

2.3. Identification of Compounds from Head

Compounds extracted from the head constituted of straight and methyl branched hydrocarbons (76%), alcohols (7%), and fatty acids (17%). Hydrocarbons in the head were mostly similar to hydrocarbons in cuticular extracts and may be mostly from the cuticle of the head. The head also contained two alcohols, 1-hexanol and 1-octanol, which were previously identified in the mandibular glands and head extract of O. smaragdina [11,12] and O. longinoda [6]. Although alcohols have been identified in other ant species (Crematogaster sp.), the biological functions remain unknown [36,37,38]. Fatty acids were present only in the head extract in our study (Table 4). The identified fatty acids in head extracts, including palmitic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid, and stearic acid are ubiquitous in nature and are known to have antifungal properties [39]. In the ant Solenopsis invicta, such fatty acids can increase in amount on the body surface after death and provide a ‘death cue’ that induces necrophoric behavior [40,41,42,43].

Table 4.

Compounds isolated from the head of the workers of Oecophylla smaragdina.

Compounds MW RT (min) RI Lit. RI [Ref] ECL Content (%)
(Mean ± SE)
1-Hexanol 102.17 4.19 863 867 [44] 8.63 1.84 ± 0.29
Hexanoic acid 116.16 5.75 977 974 [45] 9.77 3.81 ± 0.59
4,6-Dimethyldecane 170.33 6.99 1057 10.57 0.10 ± 0.04
1-Octanol 130.23 7.22 1073 1068 [31] 10.73 0.46 ± 0.09
1-Undecene 154.29 7.53 1093 1090 [32] 10.93 0.01 ± 0.01
Undecane 156.31 7.67 1101 11.01 0.06 ± 0.02
2, 4, 9-trimethyldodecane 212.41 10.28 1280 12.80 0.09 ± 0.03
Heptadecane 240.48 15.53 1701 17.01 0.40 ± 0.07
Palmitic acid 256.42 18.24 1962 1964 [31] 19.62 5.04 ± 0.75
Linoleic acid 280.45 19.94 2143 2140 [46] 21.43 1.98 ± 0.36
Oleic acid 282.46 19.96 2146 2147 [47] 21.46 14.25 ± 2.92
Stearic acid 284.48 20.13 2164 2168 [48] 21.64 0.37 ± 0.22
11-; 13-Methylheptacosane 394.76 24.69 2728 2731 [49] 27.28 3.36 ± 0.55
Nonacosane 408.79 26.20 2901 29.01 2.41 ± 0.41
11-; 13-; 15-Methylnonacosane 422.81 26.47 2930 2932 [14] 29.30 11.07 ± 1.88
11,19-; 13,15-Dimethylnonacosane 436.84 26.73 2959 29.59 4.25 ± 0.70
12-; 13-; 14-; 15-Methyltriacontane 436.84 27.50 3026 30.26 2.98 ± 0.50
9,13-; 12,15-Dimethyltriacontane 450.87 27.79 3052 30.52 1.59 ± 0.26
Hentriacontane 436.84 28.38 3104 31.04 2.00 ± 0.35
11-; 13-; 15-Methylhentriacontane 450.87 28.67 3127 3135 [14] 31.27 31.59 ± 5.75
11,15-; 13,14-Dimethylhentriacontane 464.89 28.99 3153 3163 [14] 31.52 20.89 ± 3.84
12-; 14-; 15-; 16-Methyldotriacontane 464.89 29.94 3225 3231 [14] 32.25 3.65 ± 0.63
12,16-Dimethyldotriacontane 478.92 30.28 3251 3257 [14] 32.51 3.37 ± 0.59
13-; 15-; 16-Methyltritriacontane 478.92 31.36 3326 3335 [14] 33.26 21.64 ± 4.11
14,17-Dimehtyltritriacontane 492.95 31.72 3351 3364 [14] 33.50 24.79 ± 4.85
14,18-Dimethyltetratriacontane 506.97 33.26 3449 3456 [14] 34.49 1.54 ± 0.29
13-; 15-; 17-Methylpentatriacontane 506.97 34.53 3524 3534 [14] 35.24 0.92 ± 0.50
13,17-; 15,19-Dimethylpentatriacontane 506.97 34.95 3547 3559 [14] 35.47 2.18 ± 0.90
Open in a new tab

MW: Molecular weight; RT (min): Retention time in minutes; RI: Retention index; Lit. RI [Ref]: Literature retention Index; SE: Standard error; ECL: Equivalent chain length (ECL = RI/100).

2.4. Identification of Compounds from Headspace

Headspace volatiles from O. smaragdina included hydrocarbons (56%), aldehyde (6%), alcohol (13%) and terpenes (25%) and was the only extract that contained diverse terpenes and terpinoids such as p-cymene, limonene, γ-terpinene, and dihydromyrcenol (Table 5). Terpenes of O. smaragdina have been previously reported from extracts of mandibular glands [11]. It was previously thought that terpenes including limonene, p-cymene and γ-terpinene may be sequestered by ants [50] for use in alarm signals [51]. However, recent studies have shown that terpenes are produced by the ants themselves [52]. Headspace volatiles have not previously been investigated in Oecophylla species and so species comparisons are not possible at this time. Given the importance of headspace volatiles as mediators of interactions, comparative data from O. longinoda would be useful.

Table 5.

Headspace volatile compounds emitted by workers of Oecophylla smaragdina.

Compounds MW RT (min) RI Lit. RI [Ref] ECL Content (%)
(Mean ± SE)
1-Hexanol 102.17 4.19 863 867 [45] 8.63 0.93 ± 0.29
Decane 142.28 6.15 1104 11.04 0.62 ± 0.09
p-Cymene 134.22 6.57 1031 1030 [53] 10.31 1.81 ± 0.73
Limonene 136.23 6.63 1035 1044 [30] 10.35 7.11 ± 2.05
γ-Terpinene 136.23 7.10 1065 1062 [54] 10.65 1.34 ± 0.46
1-Octanol 130.23 7.22 1073 1068 [31] 10.73 1.17 ± 0.51
Dihydromyrcenol 156.27 7.25 1074 1076 [55] 10.74 35.34 ± 10.61
Undecane 156.31 7.67 1101 11.01 31.17 ± 7.53
Nonanal 142.24 7.76 1107 1108 [56] 11.07 0.67 ± 0.13
Dodecane 170.33 9.17 1201 12.01 1.05 ± 0.19
Tridecane 184.36 10.58 1301 13.01 3.77 ± 0.77
Tetradecane isomer 196.37 11.70 1395 13.95 0.31 ± 0.04
Tetradecane 198.39 11.92 1401 14.01 1.08 ± 0.13
Pentadecane 212.41 13.19 1501 15.01 5.37 ± 0.96
Hexadecane 226.44 14.39 1601 16.01 1.76 ± 0.42
Heptadecane 240.48 15.53 1701 17.01 6.49 ± 1.07
Open in a new tab

MW: Molecular weight; RT (min): Retention time in minutes; RI: Retention index; Lit RI [Ref]: Literature retention Index; SE: Standard error; ECL: Equivalent chain length (ECL = RI/100).

2.5. Identification of Compounds from Trail

Trails consist of chemicals laid by worker ants from food site and back to the nest. Many studies have demonstrated the presence of trail chemicals in O. smaragdina and O. longinoda [2,4,57] but the identity of these chemicals has not been investigated previously in either species. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed trail of O. smaragdina from trail washes of major workers. Trail washes contained hydrocarbons (91%) with undecane, nonacosane and hentriacontane being the major compounds (Table 6) and terpenes (9%; limonene) which the ants may use along with hydrocarbons for recruitment [4]. Next, to ascertain the likely source of the trail compounds we conducted a multivariant correlation analysis of chemicals from different sources of the ant (Figure 2). The results suggest that Dufour’s and poison glands are the likely source of trail compounds [58]. This analysis also found that chemicals extracted from the ant’s head and headspace volatiles tended to be unique, and further studies are needed to ascertain their origins.

Table 6.

Trail compounds of the workers of Oecophylla smaragdina.

Compounds MW RT (min) RI Lit. RI [Ref] ECL Content (%)
(Mean ± SE)
Limonene 136.23 6.63 1035 1044 [30]] 10.35 0.80 ± 0.11
Undecane 156.31 7.67 1101 11.01 28.30 ± 4.33
Tridecane 184.36 10.58 1301 13.01 1.90 ± 0.32
Tetradecane 198.39 11.92 1401 14.01 6.36 ± 1.11
Heptadecane 240.48 15.53 1701 17.01 1.88 ± 0.29
Heneicosane 296.57 19.56 2101 21.01 5.45 ± 0.73
Docosane 310.61 20.46 2201 22.01 1.69 ± 0.24
Tricosane 324.63 21.32 2297 22.97 9.24 ± 0.99
heptacosane 380.73 24.46 2701 27.01 3.24 ± 0.66
Nonacosane 408.79 26.20 2901 29.01 15.35 ± 1.99
Hentriacontane 436.84 28.38 3104 31.04 25.79 ± 4.02
Open in a new tab

MW: Molecular weight; RT (min): Retention time in minutes; RI: Retention index; Lit. RI [Ref]: Literature retention Index; SE: Standard error; ECL: Equivalent chain length (ECL = RI/100).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Multivariant correlation analysis of compounds isolated from different body parts, headspace, and trails of Oecophylla smaragdina. Analysis was based on the concentration and presence/absence of compounds. Pearson R value and P value were used as benchmark to determine the origin of compounds. Significance is denoted by * (<0.01); ** (<0.001).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Chemicals and Standards

Authentic standards of 1-hexanol, formic acid hexyl ester, hexanoic acid, p-cymene, limonene, γ-terpinene, 1-octanol, dihydromyrcenol, 1-undecene, nonanal, formic acid octyl ester, palmitic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid, stearic acid, alkane C8–C40 standard and hexane were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, Alfa-Aesar, or TCI. All chemicals were of analytical grade (≥98% purity) and were used without further purification.

3.2. Insects

Green tree ants (major workers) were collected in August 2018 from 5 different colonies at the Mareeba Research Facility, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, QLD, Australia (17.00724 °S, 145.42984 °E). Colonies were differentiated based on distance (~300 m) between colonies, canopy interconnections and interconnection trails [59]. Insects were sampled from different nests within a colony and were directly extracted or dissected in the laboratory of the Mareeba Research Facility. The collected samples were transported to Macquarie University, Sydney and prepared for GCMS analysis. The collected samples were stored at stored at −20 °C until transported via a local courier service. All the preparation and analysis of GCMS samples were conducted at Macquarie University. The samples were immediately processed as received that involved removing aqueous droplet(s), filtering off solid matters and evaporating solvents under a nitrogen stream to a small volume and stored at 4 °C until GCMS analysis.

3.3. Cuticular Compounds

Cuticular compounds (CCs) of social insects commonly function in communication of colony identity and in maintaining social unity. In ants, CCs are spread throughout the epi-cuticular surface are commonly essential for nestmate recognition [60]. Heavier CCs from green tree ants were previously reported by Allan et al. (2002), but our focus was to analyze lighter CCs that were previously overlooked. The chromatogram reported by Allen et al. showed many peaks at early retention times, but these were not reported [14]. Therefore, we used a shorter extraction time than that of Allan et al. in order to focus on lighter CCs [14]. Ant samples comprised individuals (n = 100) dipped in 10 mL of hexane for 10 s. A total of 27 samples were collected.

3.4. Dufour’s and Poison Glands

Ants were collected in 50 mL plastic vials and placed in a freezer (−20 °C) for 10 min to kill them. Dufour’s glands were extracted by dissecting the last segment of abdomen. The remnant tissues around the gland were carefully removed using fine forceps. The clean glands were immediately placed into 1.5 mL of hexane and crushed. Each sample contained ten glands. The poison gland is located in the abdomen, beside the Dufour’s gland (Figure 3), hence dissection and collection were the same as for the Dufour’s gland. A total of 10 samples of the two glands were collected.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Schematic diagram of green tree ant’s exocrine glands.

3.5. Head

Heads of ants contain many glands and are rich in volatile compounds. Many compounds from the head are known to be used for communication or defense [61]. Ant heads contain complex exocrine structures associated with mouthparts and the antennae. They also contain many glands, but four glands are particularly large, namely the mandibular gland, intramandibular glands, the propharyngeal gland, and the postpharyngeal gland (Figure 3) [61]. As it is difficult to dissect and separate individual glands from the head, we used the whole head in this study. Collected green ants were killed by placing them in a −20 °C freezer. Heads were removed with dissection scissors and immediately placed in 1.5 mL of hexane in a glass vial. This was repeated until ten heads were collected per sample. A total of seven samples were collected.

3.6. Headspace Volatiles

Volatile compounds present in the air surrounding an insect can be important for mediation of intra- and inter-specific interactions. An air entrainment system with the capacity to sample 10 chambers was used to collect headspace volatiles of live ants. A cylindrical glass chamber (150 mm long × 40 mm ID) with an inlet and outlet at the ends was used to contain ants. A charcoal filter was connected to the inlet (4 mm ID) of the glass chamber using Tygon tubing (E-3603). The outlet of the glass chamber was connected to a 6 × 50 mm glass tube containing an adsorbent (50 mg, Scientific Instrument Services Inc, Tenax-GR Mesh 60/80) fitted to a screw cap with O-ring. Ten ants were placed inside the glass chamber and were allowed to acclimatize for 30 min prior to collection of volatiles. Nine chambers containing ants and one empty control chamber were set up for each run. Headspace volatiles were adsorbed into Tenax at a flow rate of 0.5 L/min for 30 min. Green tree ants were highly active during afternoons; therefore, all collections were conducted between 2 and 4 pm. The adsorbed volatiles were eluted with 1 mL of hexane into a clean 1.5 mL sample vial. A total of 36 samples were collected. A negative control in each experiment was used to identify any background impurities.

3.7. Trails

Trail chemicals are important for co-ordination of foraging in many ants [62]. Oecophylla smaragdina inhabit hot and humid tropical ecosystems and forage over long distances across the tree canopy and the ground [63]. Given the required persistence of trails in wet conditions, their trail chemicals are expected to be of quite low volatility and to have low solubility in polar solvents such as water. Green tree ants at Mareeba Research Facility had nests close to a metal mesh fence. This mesh fence served as a regular path to transport food and other materials to the nest. Prior to collection, the section of fence (~3 m) that the ants used to commute was rinsed with acetone (100 mL) to remove pre-existing trail chemicals and contaminants. The ants were allowed to make a trail on the cleaned section of the mesh for 24 h. Next, during periods of high ant activity, the metal wire was rinsed, section by section, with a total of 100 mL hexane into a beaker (500 mL). A same length of fence not used by the ants was used as a control. The trail and control washes were concentrated under a gentle stream of clean air from a compressor with filters to remove water and oil (Pilotair K12, Pilotair, NSW, Australia) down to approximately 10 mL. A total of ten samples were collected.

3.8. Sample Processing

CCs, Dufour’s glands, poison glands and head samples contained minute quantities of water/debris and these were removed by adding a drying agent (sodium sulfate) and by gravity filtration of the collected solutions. Samples free from water and debris were concentrated under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas. CC samples were concentrated to 1 mL while Dufour’s glands, poison glands and head samples were concentrated to 0.5 mL. Trail samples were filtered to remove solid matter and concentrated to 1 mL under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas. Headspace volatile samples did not require further processing.

3.9. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS) Analysis

GC–MS analysis was carried out on a Shimadzu GC–MS TQ8030 spectrometer (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) equipped with a split/splitless injector and SH RTX-5MS (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 µm film) fused silica capillary column. The carrier gas was helium (99.99%) at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. An aliquot of 1 µL sample was injected in splitless mode with injector temperature of 270 °C. The temperature program for CCs, head extracts and trail samples were as follows: 50 °C for 1 min to 280 °C at 10 °C·min−1, then increased to 300 °C at 2 °C·min−1. The temperature program for Dufour’s gland, poison gland, and headspace extracts were as follows: 50 °C for 1 min to 280 °C at 10 °C·min−1, then increased to 300 °C at 5 °C·min−1. The ion source and transfer line temperatures were 200 °C and 290 °C respectively. The ionization method was electron impact at a voltage of 70 eV. The spectra were obtained over a mass range of m/z 45–650. Hexane solvent runs obtained from each batch of an average 20 runs were used as controls to eliminate impurities from the analyses. The instrument maintenance and alkane calibration runs were routinely performed to prevent any technical issues. The relative amounts of compounds were calculated by dividing the peak area of a compound by the sum of peak area of all compounds. The data were presented as average percentages of replicates.

For identification, the mass spectra were analyzed by Shimadzu GC–MS post-run and compared with NIST library (NIST17-1, NIST17-2, NIST17s) to suggest candidates of the compounds. The purchased compounds were co-analyzed to confirm assignment. Mass fragmentation ions were analyzed in conjunction with comparing experimental Kovat indices and that published in the literature to assign compounds. For the structural assignments of methyl branched hydrocarbons, the chain length and the number of inner branched methyl groups were established by examining an equivalent chain length and molar mass of a compound. Molecular ions of inner branched hydrocarbons often do not appear or are weak in mass spectra and hence a molar mass of a branched hydrocarbon was established by examining fragmentations of M − 15, M − 29 and so on. The fragmentation of a branched hydrocarbon generates not only odd mass, but also mass secondary ions by hydride transfer if the chain length is sufficiently long. Intensities of these ions depend on whether a secondary fragment ion has an inner branch and on the carbon chain length of such an ion. Hence, these generalizations of mass peaks of branched hydrocarbons described by previous studies were used to assign the identity and branch positions of a hydrocarbon [64,65,66].

3.10. Data Analysis

The mean of relative abundance of compounds detected from each body part, headspace volatile and trail were subjected to multivariant correlation analysis using Microsoft Excel for Mac (version 16.3, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). A correlation matrix was constructed to understand the source of the compounds. The matrix contains Pearson R value.

4. Conclusions

The present study is the first to have systematically identified chemicals from different body parts and glands of O. smaragdina. This study provides a foundation for more detailed investigation of the function of compounds produced and emitted by O. smaragdina, as well as investigation of regional and colony variation. In addition to broad comparisons between the two recognized species of Oecophylla, there is ongoing debate about the status of regional variations. For example, O. smaragdina is red in India and green in South-East Asian countries and Australia. Some authors advocate division of O. longinoda into eight subspecies and O. smaragdina into six subspecies [1]. Regardless of the taxonomic status of such regional variation, it is reasonable to anticipate geographic variation in chemical profiles both at a geographic scale such as might be consistent with regional/subspecies variation, or at a smaller scale as colony variation. Such variation may reflect heritable differences, but may also reflect differences in environmental influences, such as from nutrition [67]. In O. longinoda, the reported chemical profiles exhibit considerable variation based both on geography and between colonies [6,8], and differences between colonies have also been reported in O. smaragdina [59]. The present study provides a strong foundation for future investigations of regional and colony variation, and functional chemical ecology, of O. smaragdina.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) for access to laboratory space field sites and support during fieldwork.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.K. and P.W.T.; Data curation, V.K. and S.J.P.; Formal analysis, V.K. and S.J.P.; Funding acquisition, P.W.T.; Investigation, V.K. and S.J.P.; Methodology, V.K. and S.J.P.; Resources, S.D.F. and P.W.T.; Supervision, P.W.T.; Validation, P.W.T.; Writing–original draft, V.K. and S.J.P.; Writing-review and editing, S.D.F. and P.W.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by funds from Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre for Fruit Fly Biosecurity Innovation (Project IC150100026), including a PhD scholarship for V.K. and a Research Fellowship for S.J.P. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Sample Availability: Samples are not available from the authors.

References

  • 1.Crozier R.H., Newey P.S., Schlüns E.A., Robson S.K.A. A masterpiece of evolution–Oecophylla weaver ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Myrmecol. News. 2009;13:57–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hölldobler B., Wilson E.O. Colony-specific territorial pheromone in the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (LATREILLE) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1977;74:2072–2075. doi: 10.1073/pnas.74.5.2072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hölldobler B., Wilson E.O. Weaver ants–social establishment and maintenance of territory. Science. 1977;195:900–902. doi: 10.1126/science.841318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hölldobler B., Wilson E.O. Queen control in colonies of weaver ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1983;76:235–238. doi: 10.1093/aesa/76.2.235. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bradshaw J.W.S., Baker R., Howse P.E. Multicomponent alarm pheromones of weaver ant. Nature. 1975;258:230–231. doi: 10.1038/258230a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bradshaw J.W.S., Baker R., Howse P.E. Multicomponent alarm pheromones in the mandibular glands of major workers of the African weaver ant, Oecophylla longinoda. Physiol. Entomol. 1979;4:15–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3032.1979.tb00173.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bradshaw J.W.S., Baker R., Howse P.E. Chemical composition of the poison apparatus secretions of the African weaver ant, Oecophylla longinoda, and their role in behavior. Physiol. Entomol. 1979;4:39–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3032.1979.tb00175.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bradshaw J.W.S., Baker R., Howse P.E., Higgs M.D. Caste and colony variations in the chemical composition of the cephalic secretions of the African weaver ant, Oecophylla longinoda. Physiol. Entomol. 1979;4:27–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3032.1979.tb00174.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Offenberg J., Havanon S., Aksornkoae S., Macintosh D.J., Nielsen M.G. Observations on the ecology of weaver ants (Oecophylla smaragdina FABRICIUS) in a Thai mangrove ecosystem and their effect on herbivory of Rhizophora mucronata LAM. Biotropica. 2004;36:344–351. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Offenberg J. The distribution of weaver ant pheromones on host trees. Insectes Sociaux. 2007;54:248–250. doi: 10.1007/s00040-007-0938-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Keegans S.J., Billen J., Morgan E.D. Volatile secretions of the green tree ant Oecophylla smaragdina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 1991;100:681–685. doi: 10.1016/0305-0491(91)90273-G. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Peerzada N., Pakkiyaretnam T., Renaud S. Volatile constituents of the green ant Oecophylla smaragdina. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1990;54:3335–3336. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Allan R.A., Elgar R.A. Exploitation of the green tree ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, by the salticid spider Cosmophasis bitaeniata. Austral. J. Zool. 2001;49:129–137. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Allan R.A., Capon R.J., Brown W.V., Elgar M.A. Mimicry of host cuticular hydrocarbons by salticid spider Cosmophasis bitaeniata that preys on larvae of tree ants Oecophylla smaragdina. J. Chem. Ecol. 2002;28:835–848. doi: 10.1023/A:1015249012493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Van Mele P. A historical review of research on the weaver ant Oecophylla in biological control. Agric. Fore. Entomol. 2008;10:13–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dwomoh E.A., Afun J.V., Ackonor J.B., Agene V. Investigations on Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as a biocontrol agent in the protection of cashew plantations. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2009;65:41–46. doi: 10.1002/ps.1642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Olotu M.I., Du Plessis H., Seguni Z.S., Maniania N.K. Efficacy of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the control of Helopeltis spp. (Hemiptera: Miridae) and Pseudotheraptus wayi (Hemiptera: Coreidae) in cashew crop in Tanzania. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2013;69:911–918. doi: 10.1002/ps.3451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Drijfhout F., Kather R., Martin S. The role of cuticular hydrocarbons in insects. In: Zhang W., Lui H., editors. Behavioural Chemical Ecology. 1st ed. Nova Science Publisher; New York, NY, USA: 2013. pp. 91–114. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sprenger P.P., Burkert L.H., Abou B., Federle W., Menzel F. Coping with the climate: Cuticular hydrocarbon acclimation of ants under constant and fluctuating conditions. J. Exp. Biol. 2018;221:jeb171488. doi: 10.1242/jeb.171488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Howard R.W., Blomquist G.J. Ecological, behavioural, and biochemical aspects of insect hydrocarbons. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2005;50:371–393. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Leonhardt S.D., Menzel F., Nehring V., Schmitt T. Ecology and evolution of communication in social insects. Cell. 2016;164:1277–1287. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.01.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Neupert S., Hornung M., Millar J.G., Kleineidam C.J. Learning distinct chemical labels of nestmates in ants. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2018;12:191. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hartke J., Sprenger P.P., Sahm J., Winterberg H., Orivel J., Baur H., Beuerle T., Schmitt T., Feldmeyer B., Menzel F. Cuticular hydrocarbons as potential mediators of cryptic species divergence in a mutualistic ant association. Ecol. Evol. 2019;9:9160–9176. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5464. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Patel S., Nelson D.R., Gibbs A.G. Chemical and physical analyses of wax ester properties. J. Insect Sci. 2001;1:1–7. doi: 10.1673/031.001.0401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.de Renobales M., Nelson D.R., Blomquist G.J. Cuticular lipids. In: Binnington K.A., Retnakaran A., editors. The Physiology of the Insect’s Epidermis. CSIRO; Melbourne, Australia: 1991. pp. 240–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Buckner J.S. Cuticular polar lipids of insects. In: Stanley-Samuelson D.W., Nelson D.R., editors. Insect Lipids: Chemistry, Biochemistry and Biology. 2nd ed. University of Nebraska Press; Lincoln, NE, USA: 1993. pp. 227–270. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gibbs A.G. Water-proofing properties of cuticular lipids. Am. Zool. 1998;38:471–482. doi: 10.1093/icb/38.3.471. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tragust S., Mitteregger B., Barone V., Konrad M., Ugelvig L.V., Cremer S. Ants disinfect fungus-exposed brood by oral uptake and spread of their poison. Curr. Biol. 2013;23:76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Isidorov V.A., Zenkevich I.G., Krajewska U., Dubis E.N., Jaroszynska J., Bal K. Gas chromatographic analysis of essential oils with preliminary partition of components. Phytochem. Anal. 2001;12:87–90. doi: 10.1002/pca.564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hazzit M., Baaliouamer A., Faleiro M.L., Miguel M.G. Composition of the essential oils of Thymus and Origanum species from Algeria and their antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006;54:6314–6321. doi: 10.1021/jf0606104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Asuming W.A., Beauchamp P.S., Descalzo J.T., Dev B.C., Dev V., Frost S., Ma C.W. Essential oil composition of four Lomatium Raf. species and their chemotaxonomy. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2005;33:17–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ohnishi S., Shibamoto T. Volatile compounds from heated beef fat and beef fat with glycine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1984;32:987–992. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Klesk K., Qian M. Aroma extract dilution analysis of Cv. Marion (Rubus spp. hyb) and Cv. Evergreen (R. laciniatus L.) blackberries. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003;51:3436–3441. doi: 10.1021/jf0262209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ramaroson-Raonizafinimanana B., Gaydou É.M., Bombarda I. Hydrocarbons from three vanilla bean species: V. fragrans, V. madagascariensis, and V. tahitensis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997;45:2542–2545. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Muselli A., Rossi P.G., Desjobert J.M., Bernardini A.F., Berti L., Costa J. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of Otanthus maritimus (L.) Hoffmanns. & Link essential oils from Corsica. Flavour Fragr. J. 2007;22:217–223. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wood W.F. A comparison of mandibular gland volatiles from ants of the bull horn acacia, Acacia collinsii. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2005;33:651–658. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wood W.F., Palmer T.M., Stanton M.L. A comparison of volatiles in mandibular glands from three Crematogaster ant symbionts of the whistling thorn acacia. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2002;30:217–222. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kohl E., Hölldobler B., Bestmann H.J. Trail pheromones and Dufour gland contents in three Camponotus species (C. castaneus, C. balzani, C. sericeiventris: Formicidae, Hymenoptera) Chemoecology. 2003;13:113–122. doi: 10.1007/s00049-003-0237-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pohl C.H., Kock J.L.F., Thibane V.S. Antifungal free fatty acids: A review. Sci. against Microb. Pathog. Curr. Res. Technol. Adv. 2011;1:61–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Qiu H.L., Lu L.H., Shi Q.X., Tu C.C., Lin T., He Y.R. Differential necrophoric behaviour of the ant Solenopsis invicta towards fungal-infected corpses of workers and pupae. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2015;105:607–614. doi: 10.1017/S0007485315000528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yao M., Rosenfeld J., Attridge S., Sidhu S., Aksenov V., Rollo C.D. The ancient chemistry of avoiding risks of predation and disease. Evol. Biol. 2009;36:267–281. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Akino T., Yamaoka R. Origin of oleic acid, corpse recognition signal in the ant, Formica japonica motschlsky (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Japanese J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1996;40:265–271. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gordon D.M. Dependence of necrophoric response to oleic acid on social context in the ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. J. Chem. Ecol. 1983;9:105–111. doi: 10.1007/BF00987774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Siani A.C., Ramos M.F.S., Menezes-De-Lima O., Ribeiro-Dos-Santos R., Fernadez-Ferreira E., Soares R.O.A., Rosas E.C., Susunaga G.S., Guimarães A.C., Zoghbi M.G.B., et al. Evaluation of anti-inflammatory-related activity of essential oils from the leaves and resin of species of Protium. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1999;66:57–69. doi: 10.1016/s0378-8741(98)00148-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jerković I., Marijanović Z. Oak (quercus frainetto ten.) honeydew honey-Approach to screening of volatile organic composition and antioxidant capacity (DPPH and FRAP assay) Molecules. 2010;15:3744–3756. doi: 10.3390/molecules15053744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Benkaci-Ali F., Baaliouamer A., Meklati B.Y., Chemat F. Chemical composition of seed essential oils from Algerian Nigella sativa extracted by microwave and hydrodistillation. Flavour Fragr. J. 2007;22:148–153. doi: 10.1002/ffj.1773. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Paulo P.C., Bittrich V., Shepherd G.J., Lopes A.V., Marsaioli A.J. The ecological and taxonomic importance of flower volatiles of Clusia species (Guttiferae) Phytochemistry. 2001;56:443–452. doi: 10.1016/s0031-9422(00)00213-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zoghbi M.D.G.B., Andrade E.H.A., Maia J.G.S. Volatile constituents from leaves and flowers of Alpinia speciosa K. Schum. and A. purpurata (Viell.) Schum. Flavour Fragr. J. 1999;14:411–414. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1026(199911/12)14:6&#x0003c;411::AID-FFJ854&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-U. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lockey K.H. The adult cuticular hydrocarbons of Tenebrio molitor L. and Tenebrio obscurus F. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) Insect Biochem. 1978;8:237–250. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zi J., Mafu S., Peters R.J. To gibberellins and beyond! Surveying the evolution of (di) terpenoid metabolism. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2014;65:259–286. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050213-035705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wilson E.O., Regnier F.E. The evolution of the alarm-defense system in the formicine ants. Am. Nat. 1971;105:279–289. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhao R., Lu L., Shi Q., Chen J., He Y. Volatile terpenes and terpenoids from workers and queens of Monomorium chinense (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Molecules. 2018;23:2838. doi: 10.3390/molecules23112838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jalali-Heravi M., Zekavat B., Sereshti H. Characterization of essential oil components of Iranian geranium oil using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry combined with chemometric resolution techniques. J. Chromatogr. A. 2006;1114:154–163. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2006.02.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Roussis V., Tsoukatou M., Petrakis P.V., Chinou I., Skoula M., Harborne J.B. Volatile constituents of four Helichrysum species growing in Greece. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2000;28:163–175. doi: 10.1016/S0305-1978(99)00046-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Vasta V., Ratel J., Engel E. Mass spectrometry analysis of volatile compounds in raw meat for the authentication of the feeding background of farm animals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007;55:4630–4639. doi: 10.1021/jf063432n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tzakou O., Harvala C., Galati E.M., Sanogo R. Essential oil composition of Nepeta argolica Bory et Chaub. subsp. argolica. Flavour Fragr. J. 2000;15:115–118. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Beugnon G., Déjean A. Adaptative properties of the chemical trail system of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Formicinae) Insectes Soc. 1992;39:341–346. doi: 10.1007/BF01323954. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Zablotny J.E. Encyclopedia of Insects. Academic Press; Burlington, MA, USA: 2009. Sociality; pp. 928–935. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Newey P., Robson S.K.A., Crozier R.H. Nest and colony-specific spectra in the weaver ant Oecophylla smaragdina. Insectes Soc. 2009;56:261–268. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Vander Meer R.Κ., Morel L. Pheromone Communication in Social Insects. Westview Press; Boulder, CO, USA: 2019. Nestmate recognition in ants; pp. 79–103. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Billen J. Diversity and morphology of exocrine glands in ants; Proceedings of the XIX Simposio de Mirmecologia; Ouro Preto, Brasil. 17–21 November 2009; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Jackson D.E., Ratnieks F.L.W. Communication in ants. Curr. Biol. 2006;16:570–574. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Holldobler B. Territorial behavior in the green tree ant (Oecophylla smaragdina) Biotropica. 1983;15:241. doi: 10.2307/2387648. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.McCarthy E.D., Han J., Calvin M. Hydrogen atom transfer in mass spectrometric fragmentation patterns of saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Anal. Chem. 1968;40:1475–1480. doi: 10.1021/ac60266a021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Nelson D.R., Sukkestad D.R. Normal and branched aliphatic hydrocarbons from the eggs of the tobacco hornworm. Biochemistry. 1970;9:4601–4611. doi: 10.1021/bi00825a021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Nelson D.R., Sukkestad D.R., Zaylskie R.G. Mass spectra of methyl branched hydrocarbons from eggs of the tobacco hornworm. J. Lipid Res. 1972;13:413–421. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Henneken J., Goodger J.Q.D., Jones T.M., Elgar M.A. Diet-mediated pheromones and signature mixtures can enforce signal reliability. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2017;4:145. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2016.00145. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Molecules are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES