Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 From unicellular to multicellular organisation in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum
- 2 Optimality of communication in self-organised social behaviour
- 3 The interplay of intracolonial genotypic variance and self-organisation of dominance hierarchies in honeybees
- 4 Traffic rules of fish schools: a review of agent-based approaches
- 5 A process-oriented approach to the social behaviour of primates
- 6 Order and noise in primate societies
- 7 Self-organisation in language
- 8 Dictatorship effect of majority rule in voting in hierarchical systems
- 9 Natural selection and complex systems: a complex interaction
- 10 Interlocking of self-organisation and evolution
- Index
- References
3 - The interplay of intracolonial genotypic variance and self-organisation of dominance hierarchies in honeybees
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2009
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 From unicellular to multicellular organisation in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum
- 2 Optimality of communication in self-organised social behaviour
- 3 The interplay of intracolonial genotypic variance and self-organisation of dominance hierarchies in honeybees
- 4 Traffic rules of fish schools: a review of agent-based approaches
- 5 A process-oriented approach to the social behaviour of primates
- 6 Order and noise in primate societies
- 7 Self-organisation in language
- 8 Dictatorship effect of majority rule in voting in hierarchical systems
- 9 Natural selection and complex systems: a complex interaction
- 10 Interlocking of self-organisation and evolution
- Index
- References
Summary
Multiple mating in social insects
Multiple mating of females (polyandry) is a rare phenomenon in social hymenoptera (Strassmann, 2001). The adaptive value of single mating seems obvious: females should mate with as few males as possible to minimise predation risk during mating, the energy costs involved in mating and the chance of contracting a disease. Most importantly, polyandry nullifies the benefits of male haploidy for the inclusive fitness of the sterile workers in the colony. Multiple mating dramatically reduces the intracolonial relatedness (Boomsma and Ratnieks, 1996) and hence reduces the force of the arguments of kin selection theory (Hamilton 1964a, b), because the high intracolonial genotypic diversity creates an extreme potential for conflict among the nest members. Fourteen evolutionary rescue hypotheses have been identified to explain the potential benefits of polyandry in spite of the additional mating costs (Crozier and Fjerdingstad, 2001).
Although considerable effort has been expended to explain the evolution of polyandry, the consequences of polyandry for the organisation of the society have received less attention. The honeybees (Apis spp.) may be an exception in this regard. This is primarily due to a relatively large research community working on Apis because of its economic significance. The knowledge accumulated on the biology of Apis exceeds that of other social insects by far. The other rather fortunate property is the extreme degree of polyandry in the honeybee (Palmer and Oldroyd, 2000). Multiple mating in Apis can exceed 50 drones per queen (Moritz et al., 1995, Palmer and Oldroyd, 2001).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005
References
and (1996). Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B 351, 947–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1962). The isolation and synthesis of queen substance, 9-oxodec-trans-2-enoic acid, a honeybee pheromone. Proc. Roy. Entomol. Soc. London 155, 417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2004). Using silicon tubes for trapping volatile compounds on biological surfaces in vivo. Chemoecol. 14, 77–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). Polyandry in social Hymenoptera: disunity in diversity?Ann. Zool. Fenn. 38, 267–285Google Scholar
(1964a). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J. Theoret. Biol. 7, 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1964b). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J. Theoret. Biol. 7, 17–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1989). Colony performance in honeybees (Apis mellifera capensis) depends on the proportion of subordinate and dominant workers. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24, 291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1995a). Identification of quantitative trait loci that affect pollen-hoarding behavior in the honeybee. J. Cell Biochem. Suppl. 21A, 196–198Google Scholar
, and (1995b). Major quantitative trait loci affecting honeybee foraging behavior. Genetics 141, 1537–1545Google Scholar
, , , and (1999). Quantitative trait loci influencing honeybee alarm pheromone levels. J. Hered. 90, 585–589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2000). Genotypical variability for the tasks of water collecting and scenting in a honey bee colony. Ethology 106, 769–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1985). Inheritance of dominance in honeybees (Apis mellifera capensis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17, 87–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and et al. (1995). High degree of polyandry in Apis dorsata queens detected by microsatellite variability. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37, 357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1998). Estimating the contribution of laying workers to population fitness in African honeybees (Apis mellifera) with molecular markers. Insects Soc. 45, 277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2000). Pheromonal contest between honeybee workers. Naturwiss. 87, 395–397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2001). The role of the queen in the distribution of workers in the honeybee colony. Ethology 107, 1–13Google Scholar
, and (2003). Honeybee workers (Apis mellifera capensis) compete for producing queen-like pheromone signals. Proc. Roy. Soc. London 271: S98–S100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). The Cape Honeybee phenomenon: the sympatric evolution of a social parasite in real time. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 271–281Google Scholar
and (1998). Self-organization and the evolution of division of labor. Apidologie 29, 171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2000). Genetic dissection of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) foraging behavior. J. Hered. 91, 474–479CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2000). Evolution of multiple mating in the genus Apis. Apidologie 31, 235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). Mating frequency in Apis florea revisited (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Insectes Soc. 48, 40–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1996). Caste-selective pheromone biosynthesis in honeybees. Science 271, 1851–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1998). Biosynthesis of mandibular acids in honey bees (Apis mellifera): de novo synthesis, route of fatty acid hydroxylation and caste selective beta-oxidation. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 28, 31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988). Reproductive harmony via mutual policing by workers in eusocial insects. Am. Naturalist 132, 217–236Google Scholar
and (1988). Genetic determination of guarding and undertaking in honey bee colonies. Nature 333, 356–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüns, H., Moritz, R. F. A. and Kryger, P. (2001). Behavioral control over mating frequency in queen honeybees (Apis mellifera L.): revisiting the sperm-limitation-hypothesis. In Proc. 2001 Berlin Mg European Sections of IUSSI, p. 105
(1979). Queen substance dispersal by messenger workers in honeybee colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 5, 391–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2001). The ontogenetic pattern of mandibular gland components in queenless worker bees (Apis mellifera capensis Esch.). J. Insect Physiol. 47, 735–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). The rarity of multiple mating by females in the social Hymenoptera. Insectes Soc. 48, 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1955). Sperm distribution in the spermathecae of multiple-mated queen honey bees. J. Econ. Entomol. 48, 522–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000). No behavioral control over mating frequency in queen honeybees (Apis mellifera L.): implications for the evolution of extreme polyandry. Am. Naturalist 155, 820–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B 237, 37–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1972). Observations of the transmission of queen substances in the honeybee colony by the attendants of the queen. Behaviour 41, 105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1998). Honey bee primer pheromones and colony organization: gaps in our knowledge. Apidologie 29, 81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Pheromone mimicry by Apis mellifera capensis social parasites leads to reproductive anarchy in host Apis mellifera scutellata colonies. Apidologie 33, 139–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1960). Natural and artificial insemination of queen honey bees. Pszczelnicze Zeszyty Naukowe 4, 183–275Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by