19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Solitary bees reduce investment in communication compared with their social relatives

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Social animals must communicate to define group membership and coordinate social organization. For social insects, communication is predominantly mediated through chemical signals, and as social complexity increases, so does the requirement for a greater diversity of signals. This relationship is particularly true for advanced eusocial insects, including ants, bees, and wasps, whose chemical communication systems have been well-characterized. However, we know surprisingly little about how these communication systems evolve during the transition between solitary and group living. Here, we demonstrate that the sensory systems associated with signal perception are evolutionarily labile. In particular, we show that differences in signal production and perception are tightly associated with changes in social behavior in halictid bees. Our results suggest that social species require a greater investment in communication than their solitary counterparts and that species that have reverted from eusociality to solitary living have repeatedly reduced investment in these potentially costly sensory perception systems.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems.

          Animal communication systems have evolved so that individuals can make decisions based upon the behaviour, physiology or morphology of others. Receiving mechanisms probably evolve to increase the efficiency and reliability of information reception whereas signals probably evolve to increase the efficiency of communication and reliability of manipulation of the receiving individual to the benefit of the emitter. The minimum requirement for clear reception suggests that any study of the evolution and design of communication systems must consider the factors that affect the quality of the received and processed signal. Critical information is needed about how the signal is generated and emitted, how it fares during transmission through air, water or substrate, how it is received and processed by the receiver's sensory and cognitive systems, and the factors which affect the fitness consequences of alternative ways of reacting to the information contained in the signal. These should allow predictions about the kinds and forms of signals used by animals signalling under known conditions. Phylogenetic history, and the geological time a clade spends in different signalling environments, will also affect signal evolution, and hence the success of predictions about signal design. We need to use methods of many different biological fields to understand the design and evolution of signals and signalling systems.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Social evolution. Genomic signatures of evolutionary transitions from solitary to group living.

            The evolution of eusociality is one of the major transitions in evolution, but the underlying genomic changes are unknown. We compared the genomes of 10 bee species that vary in social complexity, representing multiple independent transitions in social evolution, and report three major findings. First, many important genes show evidence of neutral evolution as a consequence of relaxed selection with increasing social complexity. Second, there is no single road map to eusociality; independent evolutionary transitions in sociality have independent genetic underpinnings. Third, though clearly independent in detail, these transitions do have similar general features, including an increase in constrained protein evolution accompanied by increases in the potential for gene regulation and decreases in diversity and abundance of transposable elements. Eusociality may arise through different mechanisms each time, but would likely always involve an increase in the complexity of gene networks.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Conserved class of queen pheromones stops social insect workers from reproducing.

              A major evolutionary transition to eusociality with reproductive division of labor between queens and workers has arisen independently at least 10 times in the ants, bees, and wasps. Pheromones produced by queens are thought to play a key role in regulating this complex social system, but their evolutionary history remains unknown. Here, we identify the first sterility-inducing queen pheromones in a wasp, bumblebee, and desert ant and synthesize existing data on compounds that characterize female fecundity in 64 species of social insects. Our results show that queen pheromones are strikingly conserved across at least three independent origins of eusociality, with wasps, ants, and some bees all appearing to use nonvolatile, saturated hydrocarbons to advertise fecundity and/or suppress worker reproduction. These results suggest that queen pheromones evolved from conserved signals of solitary ancestors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
                Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                June 20 2017
                June 20 2017
                June 20 2017
                May 22 2017
                : 114
                : 25
                : 6569-6574
                Article
                10.1073/pnas.1620780114
                5488929
                28533385
                4eb5e142-7d8b-45e0-a942-4333dc7df269
                © 2017

                Free to read

                http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/userlicense.xhtml

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article