Corpse management in social insects

International Journal of Biological Sciences

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 313-321

  Sun, Qian ^a   Zhou, Xuguo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Eusociality; Hymenoptera; Isoptera; Necrophoresis; Undertaking behavior

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANT; ASSOCIATION; BEE; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; EUSOCIALITY; HYMENOPTERA; ISOPTERA; ISOPTERA.; NECROPHORESIS; PHYSIOLOGY; REVIEW; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; UNDERTAKING BEHAVIOR;

EUSOCIALITY; HYMENOPTERA; ISOPTERA.; NECROPHORESIS; UNDERTAKING BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; ANTS; BEES; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CUES; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; ISOPTERA; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

APOIDEA; FORMICIDAE; HEXAPODA; HYMENOPTERA; ISOPTERA;

EID: 84875500371     PISSN: 14492288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.5781     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Douglas-Hamilton I, Bhalla S, Wittemyer G, Vollrath F. Behavioural reactions of elephants towards a dying and deceased matriarch. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006; 100(1-2): 87-102.
2. Rudolf VH, Antonovics J. Disease transmission by cannibalism: rare event or common occurrence? Proc R Soc London, Ser B. 2007; 274(1614): 1205-1210.
3. Cremer S, Armitage SA, Schmid-Hempel P. Social immunity. Curr Biol. 2007; 17(16): 693-702.
4. Konrad M, Vyleta ML, Theis FJ, et al. Social transfer of pathogenic fungus promotes active immunisation in ant colonies. PLoS Biol. 2012; 10(4): e1001300.
5. Wilson EO, Durlach NI, Roth LM. Chemical releaser of necrophoric behavior in ants. Psyche. 1958; 65(4):108-114.
6. Visscher PK. The honey bee way of death: Necrophoric behaviour in Apis mellifera colonies. Anim Behav. 1983; 31(4): 1070-1076.
7. Neoh KB, Yeap BK, Tsunoda K, Yoshimura T, Lee CY. Do termites avoid carcasses? Behavioral responses depend on the nature of the carcasses. PLoS One. 2012; 7(4): e36375.
8. Rollo CD, Czvzewska E, Borden JH. Fatty acid necromones for cockroaches. Naturwissenschaften. 1994; 81(9): 409-410.
9. Yao M, Rosenfeld J, Attridge S, et al. The ancient chemistry of avoiding risks of predation and disease. Evol Biol. 2009; 36(3): 267-281.
10. Tietjen WJ. Sanitary behavior by the social spider Mallos Gregalis (Dictynidae): Distribution of excreta as related to web density and animal movements. Psyche. 1980; 87(1-2): 59-73.
11. Benton TG, Foster WA. Altruistic housekeeping in a social aphid. Proc R Soc London, Ser B. 1992; 247(1320): 199-202.
12. Choe DH, Millar JG, Rust MK. Chemical signals associated with life inhibit necrophoresis in Argentine ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(20):8251-8255.
13. Bot ANM, Currie CR, Hart AG, Boomsma JJ. Waste management in leaf-cutting ants. Ethol Ecol Evol. 2001; 13(3): 225-237.
14. Spivak M, Masterman R, Ross R, Mesce KA. Hygienic behavior in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) and the modulatory role of octopamine. J Neurobiol. 2003; 55(3): 341-354.
15. Renucci M, Tirard A, Provost E. Complex undertaking behavior in Temnothorax lichtensteini ant colonies: from corpse-burying behavior to necrophoric behavior. Insect Soc. 2010; 58(1): 9-16.
16. Myles TG. Alarm, aggregation, and defense by Reticulitermes flavipes in response to a naturally occurring isolate of Metarhizium anisopliae. Soiobiology. 2002; 40(2): 243-255.
17. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO. The Ants. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1990.
18. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO. The Superorganism: the Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. WW Norton & Company. 2009.
19. Chouvenc T, Robert A, Semon E, Bordereau C. Burial behaviour by dealates of the termite Pseudacanthotermes spiniger (Termitidae, Macrotermitinae) induced by chemical signals from termite corpses. Insect Soc. 2012; 59(1): 119-125.
20. Ulyshen MD, Shelton TG. Evidence of cue synergism in termite corpse response behavior. Naturwissenschaften. 2012; 99(2): 89-93.
21. Chouvenc T, Su NY. When subterranean termites challenge the rules of fungal epizootics. PLoS One. 2012; 7(3): e34484.
22. Haskins CP, Haskins EF. Notes on necrophoric behavior in the archaic ant Myrmecia Vindex (Formicidae: Myrmeciinae). Psyche. 1974; 81(2): 258-267.
23. Purnamadjaja AH, Russell RA. Pheromone communication in a robot swarm: necrophoric bee behaviour and its replication. Robotica. 2005; 23(06): 731.
24. Karaboga D, Akay B. A survey: algorithms simulating bee swarm intelligence. Artif Intell Rev. 2009; 31(1-4): 61-85.
25. Gordon DM. Dependence of necrophoric response to oleic acid on social context in the ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. J Chem Ecol. 1983; 9(1): 105-111.
26. Howard DF, Tschinkel WR. Aspects of necrophoric behavior in the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Behaviour. 1976; 56: 157-180.
27. Sun Q, Haynes KF, Zhou X. Differential undertaking response of a lower termite to congeneric and conspecific corpses. Sci Rep; In press.
28. Siderhurst MS, James DM, Bjostad LB. Ultraviolet light induced autophototoxicity and negative phototaxis in Reticulitermes termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology. 2006; 48(1): 27-49.
29. Park YI, Raina AK. Light sensitivity in workers and soldiers of the Formosan subterranean termite, Coptotermes formosanus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology. 2005; 45(2): 367-376.
30. Rollo CD, Borden JH, Casey IB. Endogenously produced repellent from American cockroach (Blattaria: Blattidae): Function in death recognition. Environ Entomol. 1995; 24(1): 116-124.
31. Inward D, Beccaloni G, Eggleton P. Death of an order: a comprehensive molecular phylogenetic study confirms that termites are eusocial cockroaches. Biol Lett. 2007; 3(3): 331-335.
32. Dukas R. Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees. Ecol Lett. 2001; 4(4): 327-333.
33. Abbott KR. Bumblebees avoid flowers containing evidence of past predation events. Can J Zool. 2006; 84(9): 1240-1247.
34. Julian GE, Cahan S. Undertaking specialization in the desert leaf-cutter ant Acromyrmex versicolor. Anim Behav. 1999; 58(2): 437-442.
35. Driessen GJJ, Raalte ATV, Bruyn GJD. Cannibalism in the red wood ant, Formica polyctena (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Oecol. 1984; 63(1): 13-22.
36. Suzuki K, Yoshihama T, Shigematsu Y. Sweeping behaviours of honey bees at the hive entrance. Bull Fac Edu, Chiba Univ. 1974; 23: 273-281.
37. Trumbo ST, Robinson GE. Learning and task interference by corpse-removal specialists in honey bee colonies. Ethol. 1997; 103(11): 966-975.
38. Skidmore B, Heithaus ER. Lipid cues for seed-carrying by ants in Hepatica americana. J Chem Ecol. 1988; 14(12): 2185-2196.
39. Rettenmeyer C. Behavioral studies of army ants. Univ Kans Sci. Bull. 1963; 44(9): 281-465.
40. Diez L, Deneubourg JL, Detrain C. Social prophylaxis through distant corpse removal in ants. Naturwissenschaften. 2012; 99(10): 833-842.
41. Stahel G, Geijskes DC. Ueber den bau der nester von Atta cephalotes L. und Atta sexdens L. (Hym. Formicidae). Rev. Entomol. 1939; 10(1): 27-78.
42. Moser JC. Contents and structure of Atta texana nest in summer. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1963; 56(3): 286-291.
43. Marikovsky P. On some features of behavior of the ants Formica rufa L. infected with fungous disease. Insect Soc. 1962; 9(2): 173-179.
44. Mabelis AA. Wood ant wars: the relationship between aggression and predation in the red wood ant (Formica Polyctena Forst). Neth J Zool. 1978; 29: 451-620.
45. Chapuisat M. Social evolution: sick ants face death alone. Curr Biol. 2010; 20(3): R104-105.
46. Heinze J, Walter B. Moribund ants leave their nests to die in social isolation. Curr Biol. 2010, 20(3): 249-252.
47. Kramm KR, West DF, Rockenbach PG. Termite pathogens: Transfer of the entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae between Reticulitermes sp. termites. J Invertebr Pathol. 1982; 40(1): 1-6.
48. Zoberi MH. Metarhizium anisopliae, a fungal pathogen of Reticulitermes flavipes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Mycologia. 1995; 87(3): 354-359.
49. Su N-Y. Response of the Formosan subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) to baits or nonrepellent termiticides in extended foraging arenas. J Econ Entomol. 2005; 98(6): 2143-2152.
50. Chouvenc T, Su N-Y. Apparent synergy among defense mechanisms in subterranean termites (Rhinotermitidae) against epizootic events: Limits and potential for biological control. J Econ Entomol. 2010; 103(4): 1327-1337.
51. Moore BP. Biochemical studies in termites. In: Krishna K, Weesner FM, ed. Biology of termites. New York: Academic Press; 1969: 233-282.
52. Rosengaus RB, Traniello JFA, Bulmer MS. Ecology, behavior and evolution of disease resistance in termites. In: Bignell ED, Roisin Y, Lo N, ed. Biology of termites: A modern synthesis. New York: Springer; 2011: 165-191.
53. Song D, Hu XP, Su NY. Survivorship, cannibalism, body weight loss, necrophagy, and entombment in laboratory groups of the Formosan subterranean termite, Coptotermes formosanus under starvation (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology. 2006; 47(1): 27-39.
54. Park Y, Choe J. Territorial behavior of the Korean wood-feeding cockroach, Cryptocercus kyebangensis. J Ethol. 2003; 21(2):79-85.
55. Nalepa CA, Bell WJ. Postovulation parental investment and parental care in cockroaches. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ, ed. The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997: 26-51.
56. Rosengaus R, Traniello J. Disease susceptibility and the adaptive nature of colony demography in the dampwood termite Zootermopsis angusticollis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2001; 50(6): 546-556.
57. Chouvenc T, Su NY, Robert A. Inhibition of Metarhizium anisopliae in the alimentary tract of the eastern subterranean termite Reticulitermes flavipes. J Invertebr Pathol. 2009; 101(2): 130-136.
58. Milner RJ, Staples JA, Lutton GG. The selection of an isolate of the hyphomycete fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae, for control of termites in Australia. Biol Control. 1998; 11(3): 240-247.
59. Howse P. On the significance of certain oscillatory movements of termites. Insect Soc. 1965; 12(4): 335-345.
60. Rosengaus RB, Jordan C, Lefebvre ML, Traniello JFA. Pathogen alarm behavior in a termite: A new form of communication in social insects. Naturwissenschaften. 1999; 86(11): 544-548.
61. Eisner T, Kriston I, Aneshansley DJ. Defensive behavior of a termite (Nasutitermes exitiosus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1976; 1(1): 83-125.
62. Lindström M, Norin T, Valterová I, Vrkoc J. Chirality of the monoterpene alarm pheromones of termites. Naturwissenschaften. 1990; 77(3): 134-135.
63. Yanagawa A, Fujiwara-Tsujii N, Akino T, et al. Behavioral changes in the termite, Coptotermes formosanus (Isoptera), inoculated with six fungal isolates. J Invertebr Pathol. 2011; 107(2): 100-106.
64. Traniello JFA, Rosengaus RB. Ecology, evolution and division of labour in social insects. Anim Behav. 1997; 53(1): 209-213.
65. Gordon DM. The organization of work in social insect colonies. Nature. 1996; 380(6570): 121-124.
66. Crosland MWJ, Ren SX, Traniello JFA. Division of labour among workers in the termite, Reticulitermes fukienensis (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Ethol. 1998; 104(1): 57-67.
67. López-Riquelme GO, Malo EA, Cruz-López L, Fanjul-Moles ML. Antennal olfactory sensitivity in response to task-related odours of three castes of the ant Atta mexicana (hymenoptera: formicidae). Physiol Entomol. 2006; 31(4): 353-360.
68. Trumbo ST, Huang Z-Y, Robinson GE. Division of labor between undertaker specialists and other middle-aged workers in honey bee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1997; 41(3): 151-163.
69. Robinson GE, Page JRE. Genotypic constraints on plasticity for corpse removal in honey bee colonies. Anim Behav. 1995; 49(4): 867-876.
70. Robinson GE, Page R. Genetic basis for division of labor in an insect society. In: Breed MD, Page RE, ed. The Genetics of Social Evolution. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; 1989: 61-80.
71. Julian GE, Fewell JH. Genetic variation and task specialization in the desert leaf-cutter ant, Acromyrmex versicolor. Anim Behav. 2004; 68(1):1-8.
72. Gautrais J, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg JL, Anderson C. Emergent polyethism as a consequence of increased colony size in insect societies. J Theor Biol. 2002; 215(3): 363-373.
73. Jeanson R, Fewell JH, Gorelick R, Bertram SM. Emergence of increased division of labor as a function of group size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007; 62(2): 289-298.
74. Holbrook CT, Barden PM, Fewell JH. Division of labor increases with colony size in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Behav Ecol. 2011; 22(5): 960-966.
75. Evans TA. Foraging and building in subterranean termites: task switchers or reserve labourers? Insect Soc. 2006; 53(1): 56-64.
76. Crosland MWJ, Traniello JFA. Behavioral plasticity in division of labor in the lower termite Reticulitermes fukienensis. Naturwissenschaften. 1997; 84(5): 208-211.
77. Miura T, Matsumoto T. Worker polymorphism and division of labor in the foraging behavior of the black marching termite Hospitalitermes medioflavus, on Borneo Island. Naturwissenschaften 1995; 82(12): 564-567.
78. Hinze B, Leuthold RH. Age related polyethism and activity rhythms in the nest of the termite Macrotermes bellicosus (Isoptera, Termitidae). Insect Soc. 1999; 46(4): 392-397.
79. Johnson BR. Reallocation of labor in honeybee colonies during heat stress: the relative roles of task switching and the activation of reserve labor. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2002; 51(2): 188-196.
80. Seeley TD. Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1982; 11(4): 287-293.
81. Wilson EO. Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta): III. Ergonomic resiliency in foraging by A. cephalotes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1983; 14(1): 47-54.
82. Gordon DM. Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants. Anim Behav. 1989; 38(2): 194-204.
83. Lima JT, Costa-Leonardo AM. Tunnelling behaviour of the Asian subterranean termite in heterogeneous soils: presence of cues in the foraging area. Anim Behav. 2012; 83(5): 1269-1278.