Search

An organism's morphology is constrained by its evolutionary history and the need to meet a variety of potentially competing functions. The ant genus Pheidole is the most species-rich ant genus and almost every species has a dimorphic worker caste (a few are trimorphic). This separation of workers into two developmentally distinct subcastes (smaller minors and larger majors with distinctively large heads) may partially release individuals from functional constraints on morphology, making Pheidole an ideal genus for addressing questions on the evolution of morphology in relation to ecological specialization. Major workers can perform a variety of tasks, although they are usually specialized for defence, as well as food retrieval and processing. Pheidole species vary in their diet, although many species gather seeds. The major workers mill the seeds using large jaws powered by mandible closer muscles that occupy a large proportion of the head cavity. In the present study, we examined the relationship between seed-harvesting and morphology in Pheidole, hypothesizing that majors of seed-harvesting species would have larger heads relative to non-seed-harvesters to accommodate the powerful mandibular muscles needed to mill seeds. By taking a phylogenetically controlled comparative approach, we found that majors of seed-associated Pheidole did not have larger heads (width and length) than majors of non-seed-harvesting species. However, the head length of minors (and to a lesser extent head width) was smaller in seed-harvesters. Additionally, we found the difference in head size between majors and minors was greater in seed-harvesting species. These morphological differences in diet, however, were not related to changes in the rate of evolution in either seed-harvesting or non-seed-harvesting lineages. These findings suggest that the morphologies of worker subcastes can evolve independently of each other, allowing colonies with polymorphic workers to specialize on new resources or tasks in ways not possible in monomorphic species.

Social insects are distinguished by their extraordinary degree of cooperation and the complexity of their group organization. However, a high proportion of individuals (often .50% at any one time) in a social insect colony tend to be inactive. It has been hypothesized that larger colonies can afford such inactivity because of efficiencies gained through stronger division of labor. We quantify the degree to which colonies of different sizes exhibit division of labor, and what proportion tends to be inactive, in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Colony size neither influenced individual specialization nor overall division of labor in this species and larger colonies did not show a higher proportion of inactive workers. Interestingly, small colonies seemed to rely more on a small number of high-performance workers: the proportion of work performed by the single most active worker is significantly higher in smaller colonies for several tasks. More research is needed to resolve when and how colony size affects collective organization and division of labor in insect colonies. Key words: colony size, division of labor, scaling, self-organization, social insects, specialization, task allocation. [Behav Ecol]

Here, we study distribution of workload and its relationship to colony size among worker ants of Temnothorax albipennis, in the context of colony emigrations. We find that one major aspect of workload, number of items transported by each worker, was more evenly distributed in larger colonies. By contrast, in small colonies, a small number of individuals perform most of the work in this task (in one colony, a single ant transported 57% of all items moved in the emigration). Transporters in small colonies carried more items to the new nest per individual and achieved a higher overall efficiency in transport (more items moved per transporter and unit time). Our results suggest that small colonies may be extremely dependent on a few key individuals. In studying colony organisation and division of labour, the amount of work performed by each individual, not just task repertoire (which tasks are performed at all), should be taken into account.