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-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:49:15.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Invasive eusocieties: Commonalities between ants and humans

from V - Invasion: The Movement of Invasive and Disease Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

By
Patrizia D'ettorre
Edited by
Nicole Boivin ,
Rémy Crassard  and
Michael Petraglia
Patrizia D'ettorre
Affiliation:
University of Paris
Nicole Boivin
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena
Rémy Crassard
Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Lyon
Michael Petraglia
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Similar to humans, ants dominate many terrestrial ecosystems as a result of their absolute numbers and diversity. Ants build cities, conduct wars, maintain infant nurseries and cemeteries, and practice agriculture and husbandry. In contrast to humans, the extraordinary ecological success of ants, and their propensity to invasion, has been achieved without the evolution of higher individual cognitive abilities. In this chapter, I describe the qualities that enhance ant dispersal and explore comparisons between ants and humans in the context of the colonization of new environments. Ants and humans have several characteristics in common that have facilitated their global dispersal and ecological success: cooperation, sociality, advanced communication, division of labour, and a generalist lifestyle. Ant societies and human societies are the result of two major transitions in the evolution of complexity in life. Progress in understanding one evolutionary transition might help to explain others.

Keywords: Ants, cooperation, dispersal strategies, invasiveness, unicoloniality

INTRODUCTION: THE ECOLOGICAL SUCCESS OF SOCIETIES

Around 2 million years ago, hominins dispersed out of Africa and started a complex and dynamic process of colonization of the planet, which ultimately culminated in the globalized occurrence of Homo sapiens. The reasons and conditions for this spectacular ecological success are multiple and they are extensively discussed in this volume (see in particular chapters in this volume by Dennell, Drake and Blench, Erlandson, and Petraglia). Above all, it appears that increasing technological innovation, and the parallel development of underlying advanced cognitive abilities, significantly contributed to global human dispersal and anthropogenic ecosystem management. Evidence points to the likelihood that these levels of increasing cognitive complexity would have not been reached if hominins were a solitary species; instead, it appears that brain development is linked to increased group size (Dunbar 2003), multifaceted social interactions (Dunbar et al. 2010), and the characteristics of social networks (see Dennell, this volume).

Here, I will introduce the habits of a group of animals in which, in contrast to humans, extraordinary ecological success and a propensity for invasion have been achieved in the absence of the evolution of higher cognitive abilities, at least at the individual level. Yet, as with humans, the key to the globalized success of these species appears to be related to a highly structured social life.

Type
Chapter
Information
Human Dispersal and Species Movement
From Prehistory to the Present
 , pp. 411 - 429
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Aanen, D.K., Eggleton, P., Rouland-Lefèvre, C., Guldberg-Frøslev, T., Rosendahl, S., and Boomsma, J.J. 2002. The evolution of fungus-growing termites and their mutualistic fungal symbionts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 14887–14992.Google Scholar
Aiello, L.C. and Antón, S.C. 2012. Human biology and the origins of Homo . Current Anthropology 53: S269–S277.Google Scholar
Antón, S.C., Potts, R., and Aiello, L.C. (2014). Evolution of early Homo: an integrated biological perspective. Science 345: 1236828.Google Scholar
Aron, S. 2001. Reproductive strategy: an essential component in the success of incipient colonies of the invasive Argentine ant. Insectes Sociaux 48: 25–27.Google Scholar
Barber, T.C. 1916. The argentine ant: distribution and control in the United States. USDA Bureau of Entomology Bulletin 377: 1–23.Google Scholar
Boomsma, J.J. 2009. Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 364: 3191–207.Google Scholar
Boomsma, J.J. 2013. Beyond promiscuity: mate-choice commitments in social breeding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368 (1613).Google Scholar
Bot, A.N.M., Currie, C.R., Hart, A.G., and Boomsma, J.J. 2001. Waste management in leaf-cutting ants. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 13: 225–237.Google Scholar
Bourke, A. 2011. Principles of Social Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colautti, R.I. and Richardson, D.M. 2009. Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology: too much of a good thing? Biological Invasions 11: 1225–1229.
Colonese, A.C., Mannino, M.A., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., Fa, D.A., Finlayson, J.C., Lubell, D., and Stiner, M.C. 2011. Marine mollusc exploitation in Mediterranean prehistory: an overview. Quaternary International 239: 86–103.Google Scholar
Costa, J.T. 2006. The Other Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cremer, S., Ugelvig, L.V., Drijfhout, F.P., Schlick-Steiner, B.C., Steiner, F.M., Seifert, B., Hughes, D.P., Schulz, A., Petersen, K.S., Konrad, H., Stauffer, C., Kiran, K., Espadaler, X., d'Ettorre, P., Aktaç, N., Eilenberg, J., Jones, G.R., Nash, D.R., Pedersen, J.S., and Boomsma, J.J. 2008. The evolution of invasiveness in garden ants. PLoS ONE 3: e3838.Google Scholar
d'Ettorre, P. and Heinze, J. 2001. Sociobiology of slave-making ant. Acta Ethologica 3: 67–82.Google Scholar
d'Ettorre, P. and Heinze, J. 2005. Individual recognition in ant queens. Current Biology 15: 2170–2174.Google Scholar
d'Ettorre, P. and Lenoir, A. Nestmate recognition. In Ant Ecology Edited by Lach, L., Parr, C.L., Abbott, K.L.. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010:197–209.
Davis, M.A. 2009. Invasion Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunbar, R.I.M. 2003. The social brain: mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 32, 163–181.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R.I.M., Gamble, C., and Gowlett, J. (ed.) 2010. Social Brains, Distributed Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foster, K.R. and Ratnieks, F.L.W. 2005. A new eusocial vertebrate? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 363–364.Google Scholar
Fritz, G.N. and Vander Meer, R. K. 2003. Sympatry of polygyne and monogyne colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 96: 86–92.Google Scholar
Giraud, T., Pedersen, J.S., and Keller, L. 2002. Evolution of supercolonies: the Argentine ants of southern Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 6075–6079.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O. 1990. The Ants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O. 2008. The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. New York: W.W. Norton.
Holway, D.A. 1999. Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80: 238–251.Google Scholar
Holway, D.A., Lach, L., Suarez, A.V., Tsutsui, N.D., and Case, T.J. 2002. The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 33: 181–233.Google Scholar
Ivens, A.B.F., Kronauer, D.J.C., Pen, I., Weissing, F.J., and Boomsma, J.J. 2012. Ants farm subterranean aphids mostly in clone groups – An example of prudent husbandry for carbohydrates and proteins? BMC Evolutionary Biology 12: 106.Google Scholar
Johnson, R.A. 2001. Biogeography and community structure of North American seed harvester ants. Annual Review of Entomology 46: 1–29.Google Scholar
Krushelnycky, P.D., Holway, D.A., and LeBrun, E.G. 2010. Invasion processes and causes of success. In Ant Ecology, ed. Lach, L., Parr, C.L., and Abbot, K.L., pp. 245–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lach, L. and Hooper-Bùi, L. 2010. Consequences of ant invasions. In Ant Ecology, ed. Lach, L., Parr, C.L., and Abbot, K.L., pp. 261–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lach, L., Parr, C.L., and Abbott, K.L. (ed.) 2010. Ant Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., Evans, H. Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F.A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 10: 689–710.Google Scholar
Marean, C.W., Bar-Matthews, M., Bernatchez, J., Fisher, E., Goldberg, P., Herries, A. et al. 2007. Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449: 905–908.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E. 1995. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: W.H. Freeman.
McGlynn, T.P. 1999: The worldwide transfer of ants: geographical distribution and ecological invasions. Journal of Biogeography 26: 535–548.Google Scholar
Pedersen, J.S., Krieger, M.J.B., Vogel, V., Giraud, T., and Keller, L. 2006. Native supercolonies of unrelated individuals in the invasive Argentine ant. Evolution 60: 782–791.Google Scholar
Poulsen, M. and Boomsma, J.J. 2005. Mutualistic fungi control crop diversity in fungus growing ants. Science 307: 741–744.Google Scholar
Queller, D.C. and Strassmann, J.E. 2009. Beyond society: the evolution of organismality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 364: 3143–3155.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A.M., d'Ettorre, P., and Pedersen, J.S. 2010. Low levels of nestmate discrimination despite high genetic differentiation in the invasive pharaoh ant. Frontiers in Zoology 7: 20.Google Scholar
Seeley, T.D. 1995. The Wisdom of the Hive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Seifert, B. 2000. Rapid range expansion in Lasius neglectus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) – an Asian invader swamps Europe. Dt Entomol Zeitschrift 47: 173–179.Google Scholar
Steiner, F.M., Schlick-Steiner, B.C., Schödl, S., Espadaler, X., Seifert, B., Christian, E., and Stauffer, C. 2004. Phylogeny and bionomics of Lasius austriacus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux 51: 24–29.Google Scholar
Strassmann, J.E. and Queller, D.C. 2010. The social organism: congresses, parties, committees. Evolution 64: 605–616.Google Scholar
Suarez, A.V., Holway, D.A., and Case, T. J. 2001. Patterns of spread in biological invasions dominated by long-distance jump dispersal: insights from Argentine ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 1095–1100.Google Scholar
Suarez, A.V., Holway, D.A., and Tsutsui, N.D. 2008. Genetics and behavior of a colonizing species: the invasive argentine ant. American Naturalist 172: S72–S84.Google Scholar
Suarez, A.V., Holway, D.A., and Ward, PS. 2005. The role of opportunity in the unintentional introduction of nonnative ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 17032–17035.Google Scholar
Suarez, A.V., McGlynn, T., and Tsutsui, N.D. 2010. Biogeographic patterns of the origins and spread of introduced ants. In Ant Ecology, ed. Lach, L., Parr, C.L., and Abbot, K.L., pp. 233–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suarez, A.V., Tsutsui, N.D., Holway, D.A., and Case, T. J. 1999. Behavioral and genetic differentiation between native and introduced populations of the Argentine ant. Biological Invasions 1: 43–53.Google Scholar
Szathmáry, E. and Maynard Smith, J. 1995. The major evolutionary transitions. Nature 374: 227–232.Google Scholar
Tschinkel, W.R. 2004. The nest architecture of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius . Journal of Insect Science 4: 21.Google Scholar
Tsutsui, N.D., Suarez, A.V., Holway, D.A., and Case, T.J. 2000. Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97: 5948–5953.Google Scholar
Ugelvig, L.V. and Cremer, S. 2007. Social prophylaxis: group interaction promotes collective immunity in ant colonies. Current Biology 17: 1967–1971.Google Scholar
Ugelvig, L.V., Drijfhout, F.P., Kronauer, D.J.C., Boomsma, J.J., Pedersen, J.S., and Cremer, S. 2008. The introduction history of invasive garden ants in Europe: integrating genetic, chemical and behavioural approaches. BMC Biology 6: 11.Google Scholar
van Zweden, J.S. and d'Ettorre, P. (2010) The role of hydrocarbons in nestmate recognition. In Insect Hydrocarbons: Biology, Biochemistry and Chemical Ecology, ed. Blomquist, G.C. and Bagnères, A.-G., pp. 222–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Vogel, V., Pedersen, J.S., d'Ettorre, P., Lehmann, L., and Keller, L. 2009. Dynamics and genetic structure of Argentine ant supercolonies in their native range. Evolution 63: 1627–1639.Google Scholar
Vogel, V, Pedersen, J.S., Giraud, T., Krieger, M.J.B., and Keller, L. 2010. The worldwide expansion of the Argentine ant. Diversity and Distributions 16: 170–186.Google Scholar
West, S.A., Gardner, A., Shuker, D.M., Reynolds, T., Burton-Chellow, M., et al. 2006. Cooperation and the scale of competition in humans. Curr Biol 16: 1103–1106.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O. 1971. The Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E.O. 1990. Success and Dominance in Ecosystems: The Case of the Social Insects. Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany: Ecology Institute.
Wilson, E.O. 2005. Early ant plagues in the New World. Nature 433: 32.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Wyatt, T.D. 2014. Pheromones and Animal Behavior, edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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
×