Open Access

Colony size is linked to paternity frequency and paternity skew in yellowjacket wasps and hornets

BMC Evolutionary Biology201414:277

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-014-0277-x

Received: 29 June 2014

Accepted: 18 December 2014

Published: 30 December 2014

Abstract

Background

The puzzle of the selective benefits of multiple mating and multiple paternity in social insects has been a major focus of research in evolutionary biology. We examine paternity in a clade of social insects, the vespine wasps (the yellowjackets and hornets), which contains species with high multiple paternity as well as species with single paternity. This group is particularly useful for comparative analyses given the wide interspecific variation in paternity traits despite similar sociobiology and ecology of the species in the genera Vespula, Dolichovespula and Vespa. We describe the paternity of 5 species of yellowjackets (Vespula spp.) and we perform a phylogenetically controlled comparative analysis of relatedness, paternity frequency, paternity skew, colony size, and nest site across 22 vespine taxa.

Results

We found moderate multiple paternity in four small-colony Vespula rufa-group species (effective paternity 1.5 – 2.1), and higher multiple paternity in the large-colony Vespula flavopilosa (effective paternity ~3.1). Our comparative analysis shows that colony size, but not nest site, predicts average intracolony relatedness. Underlying this pattern, we found that greater colony size is associated with both higher paternity frequency and reduced paternity skew.

Conclusions

Our results support hypotheses focusing on the enhancement of genetic diversity in species with large colonies, and run counter to the hypothesis that multiple paternity is adaptively maintained due to sperm limitation associated with large colonies. We confirm the patterns observed in taxonomically widespread analyses by comparing closely related species of wasps with similar ecology, behavior and social organization. The vespine wasps may be a useful group for experimental investigation of the benefits of multiple paternity in the future.

Keywords

Social insects Polyandry Multiple paternity Paternity skew Vespula Dolichovespula Vespa Social evolution

Background

The mating frequency of social insect queens is a central factor shaping the evolution of social behavior within colonies. Polyandry, and the genetic diversity created by multiple paternity, is the foundation of many evolutionary conflicts within insect societies [1]. It also has important consequences for sexual selection, sperm competition, and the evolution of male reproductive strategies [2],[3]. But the evolution of multiple mating and multiple paternity itself is an evolutionary puzzle. It has arisen several times in the social Hymenoptera, including in a handful of ant genera, the honey bees (Apis spp.), and some vespine wasps (e.g. Vespula spp.) [4]. Multiple paternity presents automatic costs of increased exposure to sexually transmitted disease, greater predation risk while mating, and greater potential conflict among colony members due to lower relatedness [5]. So, given these costs, what are the benefits that underlie the adaptive maintenance of multiple paternity?

Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the fitness benefits of multiple mating and multiple paternity in the eusocial Hymenoptera (reviewed in [5]-[8]). The most successful suggest a colony-level benefit derived from the greater genetic diversity of colony members created when a queen uses sperm from multiple males. The pathogens and parasites hypothesis proposes that multiple paternity results in a colony with diverse genetic defenses against coevolving natural enemies, thus reducing intracolony disease transmission and increasing colony survival [9]-[12]. Alternatively, the division of labor hypothesis suggests that colonies with greater genetic diversity have greater genetically determined behavioral diversity or broader task performance thresholds, which allows for a more efficient division of labor or the exploitation of rare genetic specialists [6],[13]-[16]. A third popular hypothesis not based on genetic diversity is that queens mate with multiple males to acquire a sufficient number of sperm [17]. In this paper we explore the evolution of multiple paternity, and the predictions of these hypotheses, by comparing species of vespine wasps, i.e., the yellowjackets and hornets (Figure 1). The vespine wasps share many features of their ecology and sociobiology but vary dramatically in paternity [18]-[20], making them a useful group for comparative studies of the evolution of multiple paternity and its consequences.
Figure 1

Aerial and subterranean yellowjacket nests. A. Young colony of Dolichovespula arenaria, a typical aerial-nesting yellowjacket. B. Excavated, subterranean nest of an anesthetized colony of Vespula flavopilosa.

The pathogens hypothesis, the division of labor hypothesis and the sperm limitation hypothesis all predict that colony size (i.e. the number of workers in a colony) will be positively associated with paternity frequency (i.e. the number of fathers represented in the workers of a given colony; Figure 2) [11],[17],[21]. A larger workforce inevitably results in increased traffic by returning foragers. If each foraging trip represents a possible entry into the nest of an externally encountered pathogen, then larger colonies will acquire forager-borne diseases and parasites sooner and more often [11]. This higher parasite pressure would cause larger colonies to benefit more from disease resistance conferred by multiple paternity. Species with large colonies also tend to have greater division of labor and specialization, and thus will benefit more from multiple paternity if the genetic diversity it brings enhances the division of labor [14],[21]. Both of these hypotheses also predict more even sperm use (reduced paternity skew) for species with greater colony size because reducing skew leads to reduced intracolony genetic similarity (Figure 2; [22]). Finally, queens who create large colonies may require more sperm than is provided by her first mate, and would thus be selected to mate with more males, increasing paternity frequency [17]. In the only study of male sperm quantity in vespine wasps, adult males were found to contain over 2 million sperm, approximately 100 times the average number found in the sperm storage organs of spring queens [23], suggesting sperm may not be limiting. However, it remains theoretically possible that males benefit from incompletely inseminating queens due to sexual conflict [24]. Unlike the genetic-diversity based hypotheses, the sperm limitation hypothesis predicts that paternity skew should increase with colony size, because queens in large colonies should be selected to use all available sperm and males likely range widely in the amount of sperm they provide (Figure 2; [22]).
Figure 2

Predicted effects of colony size and nest site on paternity traits. Red arrows indicate the predicted positive (+) or negative (−) effects of increasing colony size and frequency of cavity nesting on paternity skew and paternity frequency. The predictions of the pathogens hypothesis and division of labor hypothesis stem from the effects of paternity traits on intracolony genetic similarity (black arrows).

Comparative analyses have shown that across taxonomically broad sets of species, there is a positive relationship between paternity frequency and colony size [11],[17],[22], as well as a negative relationship between paternity skew and paternity frequency, in ants, bees, and wasps [22]. As the selective forces that drive the evolution of polyandry may differ across the social insects [5], our aim in this work is to examine these predictions in a clade possessing a wide range of paternities, with species that differ little in social complexity and other traits that might confound the explanation of multiple paternity.

For the vespine wasps, we extend the logic of the pathogens hypothesis to propose another factor–nest site–that may be involved in the evolution of multiple mating and multiple paternity. Vespine wasps all construct similar nests of multiple combs surrounded by insulating layers of paper envelope (Figure 1). Some species build nests hidden in cavities, typically excavated rodent burrows, rotten logs or tree holes. Other species construct exposed, aerial nests in shrubs or suspended from tree branches. It seems possible that these nest sites, and their microenvironments, expose colonies to different types and quantities of pathogens, as has been suggested for canopy- and soil-dwelling ants [25]. Cavity-nesting and ground-nesting species may experience greater exposure to fungal and other microbial pathogens due to the increased proximity to damp soil and rotting wood, which could in turn favor multiple paternity. A casual examination of the vespine species included in the most extensive comparative analysis of colony size and paternity [22] suggests an association between colony size, nest site, and paternity. The large-colony, vulgaris-group Vespula species are subterranean nesting and have high paternity, while the small-colony Dolichovespula species are aerial nesting and have a low paternity. Because nest site and colony size are tightly associated in this data set, it is unclear whether it is colony size or nest site (or both) that distinguishes high-paternity species from low-paternity species.

Here we assume that colony size and nest site are determined by ecological factors [21], such as climate, prey type and availability, nest site availability and predator type and abundance. These hypotheses predict that selection then modifies mating and paternity traits to reflect the ecologically determined colony size and nest site. In short, these hypotheses predict that colony size and nest site cause changes in mating behavior and paternity, rather than vice versa (Figure 2).

In this study we describe the paternity of five species of North American Vespula wasps. Four of these species are members of the enigmatic Vespula rufa group, which have small colonies and subterranean nests [26],[27]. These features make this clade attractive for testing the link between nest site and paternity as these species break the correlation between colony size and nest site found in the species that have been previously studied. The fifth species, Vespula flavopilosa, has small colonies compared to other species in the Vespula vulgaris group [28], and may thus provide an interesting intermediate position in the comparison of colony size and mating frequency. It is also a facultative social parasite [28], a feature sometimes associated with reduced paternity [29],[30]. We then perform a phylogenetically controlled comparative analysis, including both colony size and nest site, to examine the species-level traits associated with the evolution of intracolony genetic similarity (relatedness), paternity frequency and paternity skew in the Vespinae.

Methods

Colony collections

We collected workers from active, mature colonies located by responding to pest control calls (V. consobrina, V. atropilosa and V. acadica in Thurston, Co., WA), by nest searching (V. flavopilosa; Tompkins Co., NY), or by “wasp-lining” foragers back to their nests (V. vidua; Tompkins Co., NY). All collections adhered to state and federal regulations. Most colonies would have been destroyed as pests regardless of our collection, and none are species known to be endangered or threatened. Samples were collected between 2008–2013 and stored frozen (−20 deg C). We collected entire colonies of V. consobrina, V. vidua and V. flavopilosa to obtain colony size data; a sample of worker V. acadica and V. atropilosa were collected from the nest entrance with a vacuum. All V. consobrina and some V. vidua colonies were collected during the day using a battery-powered vacuum. The collector waited at least 30 minutes to collect returning foragers, and for V. vidua, we returned hours later to collect the last remaining foragers and escapees. All colonies of V. flavopilosa and some colonies of V. vidua were anesthetized overnight with CO2 and excavated in the morning. For colonies of V. consobrina, V. vidua and V. flavopilosa, we counted all adult workers and determined the presence or absence of the mother queen.

Genetic analysis

We extracted DNA from approximately twenty workers or gynes per colony, as well as the mother queen when present, by placing a single antenna or leg in 100 μL of 10% Chelex solution (Chelex 100, 100–200 mesh, Bio-Rad), then incubating for 20 minutes at 95°C. We then refrigerated or froze the supernatant before PCR. Variable loci were selected based on preliminary screening of published loci [31]-[33]. We used dye-labeled primers (Applied Biosystems) in combination with a 3-primer labeling method [34] to perform multiplex PCR with 4–6 primers, depending on the species (Additional file 1: Table S1). Each 10 μL PCR reaction included 1ul extracted DNA, 5 μL Qiagen master mix (Qiagen Type-It Microsatellite Kit, Qiagen Inc.), 0.2 μL of each reverse primer, 0.2 μL (dye-labeled) or 0.1 μL (3-primer labeled) of each forward primer, 0.15 μL FAM-labeled 3-primer tag for each 3-primer-labeled primer pair, and water to total 10 μL. PCR reaction conditions were 95°C for 15 minutes, 35 cycles of 95°C for 30 seconds, 50°C for 90 seconds, 72°C for 60 seconds, followed by 60°C for 30 minutes. Fragment analysis was performed on an ABI-3730 × l sequencer using 0.5 μL PCR product combined with 15 μL HiDi Formamide and 0.15 μL LIZ 500 internal size standard (Applied Biosystems). Allele sizes were called using GeneMarker (SoftGenetics LLC) and checked twice by eye.

Estimating paternity

We used Colony2 v2.0.4.1 [35] to find the maximum likelihood configuration of paternity assignments for all genotyped workers. Workers that failed to amplify at more than two loci were excluded from the analysis. In the few cases where Colony2 assigned a worker to a matriline from a different colony, the anomalous worker genotype was checked against the genotype of the queen from that colony. If she shared an allele with the queen at all loci, a maternal sibship constraint was entered into Colony2 containing all workers in that colony that did not differ from the queen for both alleles at any locus. In all cases, the subsequent run of the likelihood analysis assigned the worker to an additional patriline from that colony. In the few cases where anomalous workers were inconsistent with being a daughter of the queen, these workers were removed from the dataset and the analysis was run again. From the paternity assignments, we calculated each colony’s observed paternity frequency (k), an uncorrected estimate of effective paternity: k e = 1 / i = 1 k p i 2 where p is the proportion of offspring in the sample fathered by male i [7],[36],[37], and a corrected estimate of effective paternity (k e3 ), which adjusts for sample size [37]. Mean intracolony relatedness was calculated from effective paternity using the formula 1 4 + 1 2 k e 3 . We calculated paternity skew using the B index [38]. Additional file 1: Table S1 reports allelic diversity and expected heterozygosity calculated from allele frequencies determined by Colony2.

Non-detection and non-sampling error

Two types of error—non-detection and non-sampling of fathers—could lead to an inaccurate estimation of effective paternity [7]. Non-detection error, when two males have the same multilocus genotype, was estimated using the formula found in ref [39]. For all five species studied, the non-detection error was <0.0025 (Table 1), suggesting that such errors did not bias our estimate of effective paternity. However, this calculation assumes maternal and paternal genotypes are known [7],[40]. When examining the maternal genotype assignments following maximum likelihood analysis in Colony2 for colonies without a genotyped queen, queen genotypes were occasionally ambiguous (i.e., assigned a genotype with probability <0.9). There were 7 ambiguous single-locus genotypes for queens of V. acadica, 3 for V. vidua, and 2 for V. atropilosa. This never occurred at more than one locus per queen, so a simple and conservative estimate of the upper bound of male non-detection error is to remove the single most variable of the problematic loci from the non-detection calculation for each of these species. Even with this adjustment, error rates were low enough to be confident that paternity estimates were not biased due to male non-detection error (Table 1).
Table 1

Summary data from paternity analysis of five Vespula species

 

Site

Year

n c

n w

k

k e

k e3

B

# W

NDE

V. acadica

WA

2008-2013

10

19.9 (19, 20)

2.00 (1.42, 2.58)

1.47 (1.17, 1.98)

1.51 (1.18, 2.08)

0.044

-

4.7e-4 a (1.3e-3) b

V. atropilosa

WA

2008-2013

10

20.1 (19, 23)

2.40 (1.80, 3.00)

1.67 (1.37, 2.14)

1.72 (1.39, 2.26)

0.10

-

2.5e-3 a (1.3e-2) b

V. consobrina

WA

20082013

12

20.4 (18, 24)

2.83 (2.00, 3.66)

1.82 (1.43, 2.50)

1.89 (1.46, 2.68)

0.069

98 (52.0)

8.0e-6

V. vidua

NY

2012-2013

10

19.8 (18, 21)

3.00 (2.12, 3.88)

2.01 (1.62, 2.67)

2.12 (1.67, 2.90)

0.056

172 (103.3)

1.7e-5 a (4.1e-5) b

V. flavopilosa

NY

2012-2013

10

19.6 (18, 20)

3.80 (3.10, 4.50)

2.80 (2.34, 3.49)

3.07 (2.50, 3.97)

0.033

899 (718.2)

1.4e-3

Colony data used to generate these summary values are presented in Additional file 1: Table S2. Site: WA collection occurred in Thurston, Co., Washington. NY collection occurred in Tompkins Co., New York. n c : number of colonies analyzed. n w : arithmetic mean (range) of the number of female offspring genotyped per colony. k: arithmetic mean (95% CI) of the number of male mates detected. k e : harmonic mean (95% CI) of the uncorrected estimate of effective paternity. k e3 : harmonic mean (95% CI) of effective paternity corrected for sample size [37]. B: arithmetic mean paternity skew using the B index [38]. # W: arithmetic mean (SD) number of workers collected in mature colonies. NDE: male non-detection error (see text). a. estimate for male non-detection error assuming all parental genotypes are known. b. upper estimate for male non-detection error, accounting for uncertain parental genotypes.

Non-sampling error occurs when a father is not detected because the sampled daughters do not include his offspring. We used the formula presented in [41],[42] to estimate the expected number of patrilines per colony, given the observed number of patrilines and the number of individuals sampled, assuming no skew among patrilines. The species-level average expected paternity frequencies were virtually identical to the observed values (V. acadica: 2.00, V. atropilosa: 2.40, V. vidua: 3.02, V. consobrina: 2.85, V. flavopilosa: 3.84; compare to observed values in Table 1). Our estimates of effective paternity and thus relatedness are already corrected for non-sampling, since the calculation of ke3 accounts for non-sampling error [37]. The values of ke3 were typically only slightly larger than k e (Additional file 1: Table S2), further suggesting that our sample sizes were sufficient to describe paternity in these species.

Comparative analysis

To analyze how mean colony size parameters and nest site preference influence paternity frequency, paternity skew, and resulting intracolony genetic similarity (relatedness), we compared these traits across 22 vespine taxa, including 2 subspecies. Because species are not independent due to shared ancestry, we performed our analyses using methods accounting for phylogeny [43],[44].

Data

We searched the literature for all vespine species with reports of paternity based on genetic data. We recorded the arithmetic mean number of patrilines per colony and used harmonic mean effective paternity to calculate intracolony genetic similarity (r). Where possible, we acquired colony-level paternity distribution data from authors to calculate the species mean B index of paternity skew for colonies with multiple paternity [38]. We then searched for data on average and maximum mature colony size (worker number). For species with multiple reports of colony size or effective mating frequency, we chose the study with the largest sample size, attempting to use reports of the two variables from the same population whenever possible, and (with the exception of Vespa velutina) only reports from colonies studied within the species’ native ranges. Our goal was to describe the average peak colony size of each species. Because colony sizes vary over the season, whenever possible we used averages of colonies that had adult reproductives present but had not entered decline (see Additional file 2). We similarly found data on the maximum number of workers recorded in an annual colony of each species, for colonies within the species’ native range. Finally, we also found estimates of the nest-site preferences of each species, recording the fraction of colonies with enclosed or subterranean nests (as opposed to aerial, exposed nests).

Phylogeny

We generated a phylogenetic hypothesis for our dataset using phyloGenerator [45] based largely on molecular data reported in two recent studies of vespine phylogeny [46],[47] (Genbank accession numbers available in Additional file 1: Table S5). Sequences were aligned with MAFFT v6.847b [48], and the phylogeny was estimated with RAxML 7.3.0 [49] using a GTRGAMMA model and a single ML run with 1000 integrated bootstraps to determine support. We ultrametricized the resulting tree using the chronopl function in the R package ape with λ = 0 to approximate non-parametric rate smoothing [50]. Three species with trait data (Vespula rufa, V. atropilosa, and D. norwegica) were omitted from the analysis because no sequence data were available. Although our resulting tree closely matched the topology for Vespula and Dolichovespula of Lopez-Osorio et al. [47], the additional data used by Perrard et al. [46] led to a topology for Vespa that differed from ours. To ensure that this difference did not influence the outcome, we performed the same comparative analysis on a tree with a Vespa topology consistent with Perrard et al. [46] and all branch lengths set equal to 1.0 [51] (Additional file 1: Table S3, Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Statistics

Because species data are not independent due to shared history [43], we analyzed comparative data with phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) models [52] implemented in R version 3.0.3 using the caper package [53],[54]. To improve homoscedasticity we log-transformed colony size and inverse-transformed the skew index B. In each model we determined how well colony size and nest site predict intracolony genetic similarity (r), paternity frequency (k) or paternity skew (B), while accounting for phylogenetic history. We also performed a similar analysis using the maximum observed colony size rather than mean colony size for each species (Additional file 1: Table S4). In PGLS models, branch lengths of a phylogeny are used to correct for the non-independence of regression residuals, the basic assumption of ordinary least squares models that is violated by species data. The transformation parameter λ scales the branch lengths of the phylogeny and thus the degree to which the phylogeny affects the regression’s residuals. When λ = 0, the phylogeny is scaled to a star phylogeny and the analysis is equivalent to an ordinary least squares model. When λ = 1, PGLS is equivalent to Felsenstein’s independent contrasts [55], the most conservative analysis allowing the greatest effect of phylogeny. Using maximum likelihood methods, λ can be optimized to best fit the residuals of the regression model [56]. We ran each model twice, once with the maximum likelihood value of λ and, because the likelihood surfaces were often shallow, once with λ set to the upper 95% confidence interval value for the maximum likelihood estimate, for the most conservative analysis (i.e., allowing the greatest effect of phylogeny). To confirm that residuals were distributed normally, residual density plots were checked by eye.

Results and discussion

The first aim of this study was to describe paternity in five species of Vespula wasps. The second aim was to determine if colony size and nest site predict intracolony genetic similarity (relatedness) across species, and if this pattern arises through effects of colony size and nest site on paternity frequency, paternity skew, or both. These patterns are used to address the question of why multiple mating and multiple paternity evolve.

Paternity

All four species of the Vespula rufa group exhibited moderate multiple paternity, with most queens mating more than once, and some using the sperm from as many as 6 males (Additional file 1: Table S2). The estimated mean effective paternity values for species in the Vespula rufa group were moderate, varying between 1.5 and 2.1 (Table 1), and similar to V. rufa, which has a mean effective paternity of 1.5 [57]. Consequently, these species may provide interesting fodder for investigating the evolution of worker reproduction: when effective paternity is near 2.0, relatedness is not predicted to determine whether workers favor worker- or queen-derived males, as their relatedness to these two types of males is equal [58]. Thus, other factors such as costs of worker reproduction or the effectiveness of queen policing may usefully explain differences between these species. Behavioral observations suggest that such differences exist: some species appear to have frequent worker reproduction (e.g., V. rufa [57] and V. consobrina [59]), while others may have little or no worker reproduction in queenright colonies (V. acadica [60], V. atropilosa [61], and V. vidua, Chien and Loope, unpublished data).

The high average effective paternity of Vespula flavopilosa (~3.1) is similar to other members of the Vespula vulgaris group, though lower than other large-colony species in eastern North America [30]. This suggests no reversion to low paternity due to facultative social parasitism, as was also found in the similar social parasite Vespula squamosa [30]. This makes sense given that queens of both of these species eventually produce colonies with many workers, and thus likely benefit from greater paternity for the same reasons as other large-colony Vespula. It remains to be seen whether the rufa-group social parasite species (e.g., V. infernalis and V. austriaca), which lack a worker caste but are probably derived from a moderately polyandrous ancestor, have reverted to monandry as predicted by the hypothesis of benefits of a genetically diverse workforce [29],[62].

The effects of colony size and nest site on paternity frequency and paternity skew

Our hypotheses for the evolution of multiple paternity all assume that ecology is largely responsible for colony size and nest site variation [21], and that paternity traits evolve in response to these two traits. To test whether colony size and nest site predict paternity traits, we conducted a phylogenetically controlled comparative analysis across 22 taxa (Figure 3). Our results suggest that (1) intracolony genetic diversity increases with colony size across species, and (2) large colony size is associated with both increased paternity frequency and reduced paternity skew (Table 2). We also confirm that paternity frequency and paternity skew explain much of the variation in intracolony genetic diversity, given that they, by definition, should together determine average intracolony relatedness.
Figure 3

Phylogeny and trait data used in comparative analyses. The rate-smoothed phylogeny includes support values from 1000 integrated bootstraps in a single ML run using RAxML 7.3.0. Intracolony relatedness (r) was calculated from k e or k e3 . Paternity frequency (k) is the mean number of observed patrilines present in each colony. Colony size estimates are the arithmetic mean number of adult workers collected from mature colonies. Nest site values are the fraction of observed nests that are in enclosed sites (ie subterranean, tree and man-made structural cavities), as opposed to exposed, aerial nests. The B skew index was averaged across all multiple-paternity colonies. Data come from references [18],[27],[30],[40],[57],[63]-[92]; for details see Additional file 2.

Table 2

PGLS models of the effect of colony size and nest site on paternity traits across 22 Vespine taxa

Model

Response

factors a

λ b

estimate

t

p

r c

λ= ML

Relatedness (r)

log 10 ( size ) +

0.24(na,0.83)

−0.14

−3.89

<0.001

0.67(0.3, 0.86)

nest site

−0.11

−2.27

0.036

0.46(0.01, 0.76)

Paternity frequency (k)

log 10 ( size ) +

0(na,0.82)

0.86

3.94

<0.001

0.67(0.31, 0.86)

nest site

0.96

1.53

0.14

0.33(−0.15, 0.68)

Paternity skew (B −1)

log 10 ( size ) +

0.35(na,na)

12.08

3.91

<0.01

0.72(0.31, 0.91)

nest site

3.13

0.63

0.53

0.17(−0.40, 0.64)

Relatedness (r)

k +

1(na,na)

−0.04

−6.03

<0.001

0.85(0.58, 0.95)

B −1

−0.004

−2.85

0.014

0.61(0.11, 0.86)

λ= upper 95% CI

Relatedness (r)

log 10 ( size ) +

0.83

−0.13

−3.07

0.007

0.58(0.16, 0.82)

nest site

−0.08

−1.30

0.211

0.29(−0.20, 0.66)

Paternity frequency (k)

log 10 ( size ) +

0.82

0.92

3.57

0.002

0.63(0.25, 0.85)

nest site

0.57

0.66

0.51

0.15(−0.33,0.57)

Paternity skew (B −1)

log10(size)d +

1

8.81

2.13

0.052 d

0.49(−0.05, 0.81)

nest site

1.45

0.24

0.81

0.06(−0.49, 0.58)

Relatedness (r)

k +

1

−0.04

−6.03

<0.001

0.85(0.58, 0.95)

B −1

−0.004

−2.85

0.014

0.61(0.11, 0.86)

abold factors are significant at p<0.05.

bvalues in the λ = ML model show the maximum likelihood estimate of λ and the 95% confidence interval. “na” means the estimate is outside of the bounds (0, 1).

ceffect size calculated from t-values and sample size using compute.es package in R [93]. Parenthetical values are 95% confidence intervals.

deffect of colony size on paternity skew is significant if nest site is omitted as a cofactor (t = 2.23, p = 0.042).

Our PGLS models simultaneously estimate regression coefficients and optimize the error structure of the residuals using the λ transformation [52],[56],[94], the recommended procedure for analyzing comparative data that may have phylogenetic signal. When λ is zero, the phylogenetic signal is estimated to be zero and the analysis is equivalent to ordinary least-squares regression, whereas when λ is set to 1, the model incorporates the maximum amount of phylogenetic covariance and is equivalent to independent contrasts analysis [55]. The maximum likelihood estimates of λ from our models are low to moderate, between zero and 0.35, for models including both colony size and nest site (Table 2), though the uncertainty in the λ estimates suggests a possibly large phylogenetic signal. Regardless, the most conservative analyses (models with λ set to the upper 95% confidence interval) yield similar significant effects of colony size on relatedness, paternity frequency, and paternity skew (Table 2). The alternative analyses using a different phylogeny (Additional file 1: Table S3) or maximum size as a proxy for colony size (Additional file 1: Table S4) give similar results. Unsurprisingly, actual variation in paternity skew and paternity frequency both significantly predict intracolony relatedness (Table 2). Overall, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that colony size influences intracolony relatedness through changes in paternity frequency and paternity skew. These findings for the Vespinae are in concord with previous analyses of more phylogenetically diverse sets of species [11],[22].

We predicted that the nesting habit influences species’ paternity traits, as subterranean and cavity nesting may expose colonies to more pathogens. The higher paternities of the rufa-group Vespula species, compared with Dolichovespula species of similar colony size, suggest a role of nest site, as does the fact that most high paternity species (with the notable exception of Vespa velutina) are ground-nesting (Figure 4). Furthermore, when including colony size and nest site in a model predicting relatedness, both factors are significant when using the maximum likelihood value for λ in the PGLS model (Table 2). However, given the shallow likelihood surface for λ, the more conservative analysis with λ set to the upper 95% confidence interval suggests that colony size, but not nest site, drives the evolution of low intracolony relatedness. Nest site is also not a significant predictor of paternity frequency or paternity skew when included as a cofactor with colony size (Table 2). Nest site may be significant in the first model predicting relatedness (which is, because λ = 0, equivalent to an ordinary least squares model) because this trait is phylogenetically correlated with colony size and highly conserved in the genera Vespula and Dolichovespula. Although nest site is more variable in Vespa, it does not appear to be correlated with paternity in this group (analysis not shown). These mixed results provide little support for the hypothesis that pathogen-laden nest sites select for higher paternity, and the inclusion of additional species providing more phylogenetic contrasts (if they exist) would be useful.
Figure 4

Intracolony relatedness, effective paternity and colony size in Vespine wasps. Each point represents mean trait values for a species (data shown in Figure 3 and Additional file 2). This figure includes the 21 species with relatedness and colony size data used in the analyses shown in Table 2, as well as three species (Vespula atropilosa, V. rufa and Dolichovespula norwegica) that were omitted due to lack of phylogenetic information (plotted as diamonds). Model results describing statistical relationships are reported in Table 2. Notably, Vespa velutina is not depicted due to lack of data on relatedness (only paternity frequency was reported), though this species has large mean colony size, high paternity frequency, and is an aerial nester.

The evolution of multiple paternity in the Vespinae

We have considered the factors associated with the evolution of multiple paternity in a group of social wasps sharing similar annual life histories, colony founding strategies, natural enemies, temperate and subtropical distributions, foraging behaviors, and food sources [18],[19],[63],[64]. Our results confirm an important role of large colony size in the evolution of high paternity in this group. This pattern is based partly on the correlated independent origins of large colony size and high paternity in the vulgaris and squamosa groups (or a single such origin and then correlated reduction of colony size and paternity in the rufa group; Figure 3). It is also supported by transitions to moderate colony size and moderate multiple mating in the hornets, by Vespa simillima, Vespa velutina and Vespa affinis, though these groups are in need of more study. Further evidence for a link between colony size and paternity would come from confirming the difference reported between subspecies of V. simillima [65], and a detailed description of paternity and colony size for V. velutina in its native range.

What does the strong association with colony size tell us about the selective factors leading to multiple mating and multiple paternity in these species? The pathogens hypothesis is consistent with the observed effect of colony size, but remains to be directly tested in vespine wasps. The predictions that pathogens enter colonies via foragers, that larger colonies within species have more pathogens, and that species with larger colonies have more pathogens, are all testable. Numerous parasites and pathogens of social wasps have been identified [11],[63],[64] but studies of their relative occurrence and association with colony traits are lacking. The strongest evidence for this hypothesis come from experimental manipulation of mating frequency in bees [95],[96]. Such an experiment would provide a powerful test of this hypothesis in vespine wasps.

The colony size prediction of the division of labor hypothesis rests on the existence of a difference between small- and large-colony species in behavioral organization. This could be the case if large-colony species possess more morphological or behavioral castes, improved division of labor based on genetically determined task thresholds, or a larger behavioral repertoire [16]. Such a pattern has been well documented in the polistine wasps, with greater specialization and evidence supporting a genetic basis underlying specialization, in large-colony species [97]-[99], as well as differences in task partitioning within species according to colony size [100]. However, there is little evidence for such a difference in the Vespinae [101]. Large-colony Vespula workers typically lack long-term specialization [102],[103], and there is no evidence that they possess more complex, coordinated behaviors such as recruitment signals or task partitioning of nest construction [101]. On the other hand, studies of the division of labor and specialization in these wasps are few, and overlooked specialization or complexity in large-colony species, consistent with the division of labor hypothesis, may yet be discovered.

A third popular hypothesis, that queens require multiple mates to obtain enough sperm to last a lifetime [17],[104], also predicts an association between multiple paternity and colony size. However, this hypothesis does not predict that queens of large-colony, highly polyandrous species use males’ sperm more evenly than their small-colony, slightly polyandrous counterparts (Table 2; [22]). Queens that are sperm limited should use all available sperm, and thus paternity skew should reflect the (presumably high) variation in male sperm availability. Therefore, our data suggest that selection for increasing genetic diversity, rather than selection to increase sperm quantity, may explain high paternity in the vespine wasps.

Additional hypothesized benefits of high paternity, such as reducing sex ratio conflict [6],[7] or obtaining rare, critical patrilines [13],[105],[106], are not obviously linked to colony size, and thus seem less likely to explain multiple paternity in the vespine wasps. However, this group may provide useful subjects for further tests of these and other hypotheses, once more is known about their natural enemies, division of labor, mating biology, and sex investment. It will also be valuable to explore an alternative explanation for a link between colony size and paternity not considered here: it may be that increased paternity reduces intra-colony conflicts, increasing productivity and resulting in larger colonies [1],[21],[107].

Conclusion

Our results show a strong association between colony size, paternity frequency and paternity skew in the vespine wasps, consistent with earlier, taxonomically broad, analyses. The observed patterns are consistent with hypotheses for the benefits of multiple paternity based on intracolony genetic diversity, but do not support the sperm limitation hypothesis. Clearly, further, more direct, tests of the pathogens hypothesis and the division of labor hypothesis are needed. Comparing closely related species with dramatically different paternity traits but otherwise similar natural history will help to reveal the details of when and why multiple paternity evolves.

Availability of supporting data

In Additional file 2 we provide details of metadata and sources used for the comparative analysis. In Additional file 3 we provide the genotypes used in paternity assignments. In Additional file 4 we provide the sequences, alignments and tree from our phylogeny. Genbank accession numbers are found in (Additional file 1: Table S5).

Additional files

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to T. Seeley, K. Reeve and P. Sherman for support and advice throughout the study. We thank J. Kapoor and S. Bogdanowicz for advice on microsatellite genotyping. M. Choudhury helped with DNA extraction; and N. Mason and E. Hunter gave advice on comparative statistical analyses. We thank T. Seeley, H. Mattila, R. Jeanne, and M. Smith, as well as R. Jaffe and K. Foster, for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. We are grateful to K. Foster, M. Goodisman, and T. Wenseleers for providing us with data necessary to calculate paternity skew, and to R. Jaffe for suggesting the skew analysis. Funding for microsatellite primers came from a NSF-DDIG to KJL, and further funding for lab work came from an Animal Behavior Research Grant from the Cornell University Department of Neurobiology and Behavior to KJL.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University
(2)
Bee Man Exterminators LLC

References

  1. Ratnieks FLW, Foster KR, Wenseleers T: Conflict resolution in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol. 2006, 51: 581-608. 10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151003.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Boomsma JJ, Baer B, Heinze J: The evolution of male traits in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 2005, 50: 395-420. 10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130416.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Boomsma JJ: Kin selection versus sexual selection: why the ends do not meet. Curr Biol. 2007, 17: R673-R683. 10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.033.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Hughes WOH, Oldroyd BP, Beekman M, Ratnieks FLW: Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science. 2008, 320: 1213-1216. 10.1126/science.1156108.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Crozier RH, Fjerdingstad E: Polyandry in social Hymenoptera - disunity in diversity?. Ann Zool Fenn. 2001, 38: 267-285.Google Scholar
  6. Crozier RH, Page RE: On being the right size: male contributions and multiple mating in social Hymenoptera. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1985, 18: 105-115. 10.1007/BF00299039.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Boomsma JJ, Ratnieks FLW: Paternity in Eusocial Hymenoptera. Philos T Roy Soc B. 1996, 351: 947-975. 10.1098/rstb.1996.0087.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Strassmann JE: The rarity of multiple mating by females in the social Hymenoptera. Insectes Soc. 2001, 48: 1-13. 10.1007/PL00001737.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamilton WD: Kinship, recognition, disease and intelligence: constraints of social evolution. Animal Societies: Theory and Facts. Edited by: Ito Y, Brown JL, Kikkawa J. 1987, Japanese Scientific Society, Tokyo, 81-102.Google Scholar
  10. Sherman PW, Seeley TD, Reeve HK: Parasites, pathogens, and polyandry in social hymenoptera. Am Nat. 1988, 133: 602-610. 10.1086/284809.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Schmid-Hempel P: Parasites in Social Insects. 1998, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown M, Schmid-Hempel P: The evolution of female multiple mating in social Hymenoptera. Evolution. 2003, 57: 2067-2081. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00386.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuchs S, Moritz R: Evolution of extreme polyandry in the honeybee Apis mellifera L. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1998, 45: 269-275. 10.1007/s002650050561.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. 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: 289-298. 10.1007/s00265-007-0464-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Robinson GE: Regulation of Division of Labor in Insect Societies. Annu Rev Entomol. 1992, 37: 637-665. 10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.003225.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Oldroyd BP, Fewell JH: Genetic diversity promotes homeostasis in insect colonies. TREE. 2007, 22: 408-413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole BJ: Multiple mating and the evolution of social behavior in the Hymenoptera. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1983, 12: 191-201. 10.1007/BF00290771.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Matsuura M, Yamane S: Biology of the Vespine Wasps. 1990, Springer, BerlinView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene A: Dolichovespula and Vespula. The Social Biology of Wasps. Edited by: Ross K, Matthews RW. 1991, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 263-305.Google Scholar
  20. Foster KR, Ratnieks FLW: Paternity, reproduction and conflict in vespine wasps: a model system for testing kin selection predictions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2001, 50: 1-8. 10.1007/s002650100336.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Bourke AFG: Colony size, social complexity and reproductive conflict in social insects. J Evol Biol. 1999, 12: 245-257. 10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00028.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaffé R, Garcia-Gonzalez F, den SPA B, Simmons LW, Baer B: Patterns of paternity skew among polyandrous social insects: what can they tell us about the potential for sexual selection?. Evolution. 2012, 66: 3778-3788. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01721.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Stein KJ, Fell R: Sperm use dynamics of the baldfaced hornet (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Environ Entomol. 1996, 25: 1365-1370. 10.1093/ee/25.6.1365.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Wedell N, Gage MJ, Parker GA: Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. TREE. 2002, 17: 313-320.Google Scholar
  25. Walker TN, Hughes WO: Arboreality and the evolution of disease resistance in ants. Ecol Entomol. 2011, 36: 588-595. 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2011.01312.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Akre RD, Greene A, MacDonald JF, Landolt PJ, Davis HG: The Yellowjackets of America North of Mexico. 1980, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Archer ME: Vespine Wasps of the World: Behavior, Ecology & Taxonomy of the Vespinae. 2012, Siri Scientific Press, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. MacDonald JF, Matthews RW, Jacobson R: Nesting biology of the yellowjacket, Vespula flavopilosa (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc. 1980, 53: 448-458.Google Scholar
  29. Sumner S, Hughes WOH, Pedersen JS, Boomsma JJ: Ant parasite queens revert to mating singly. Nature. 2004, 428: 35-36. 10.1038/428035a.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoffman EA, Kovacs JL, Goodisman MAD: Genetic structure and breeding system in a social wasp and its social parasite. BMC Evol Biol. 2008, 8: 239-10.1186/1471-2148-8-239.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Daly D, Archer ME, Watts PC, Speed MP, Hughes MR, Barker FS, Jones J, Odgaard K, Kemp SJ: Polymorphic microsatellite loci for eusocial wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Mol Ecol Notes. 2002, 2: 273-275.Google Scholar
  32. Thorén PA, Paxton RJ, Estoup A: Unusually high frequency of (CT)n and (GT)n microsatellite loci in a yellowjacket wasp, Vespula rufa (L.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Insect Mol Biol. 1995, 4: 141-148. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.1995.tb00019.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Hasegawa E, Takahashi J: Microsatellite loci for genetic research in the hornet Vespa mandarinia and related species. Mol Ecol Notes. 2002, 2: 306-308. 10.1046/j.1471-8286.2002.00224.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Schuelke M: An economic method for the fluorescent labeling of PCR fragments. Nat Biotechnol. 2000, 18: 233-234. 10.1038/72708.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones OR, Wang J: COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour. 2010, 10: 551-555. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02787.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Starr CK: Sperm Competition, Kinship, and Sociality in the Aculeate Hymenoptera. Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems. Edited by: Smith R. 1984, Academic, Orlando, FL, 428-459.Google Scholar
  37. Nielsen R, Tarpy DR, Reeve HK: Estimating effective paternity number in social insects and the effective number of alleles in a population. Mol Ecol. 2003, 12: 3157-3164. 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01994.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Nonacs P: Measuring and using skew in the study of social behavior and evolution. Am Nat. 2000, 156: 577-589. 10.1086/316995.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaffé R: An updated guide to the study of polyandry in social insects. Sociobiology. 2014, 61: 1-8. 10.13102/sociobiology.v61i1.1-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Foster KR, Seppa P, Ratnieks FLW, Thoren P: Low paternity in the hornet Vespa crabro indicates that multiple mating by queens is derived in vespine wasps. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1999, 46: 252-257. 10.1007/s002650050617.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Oldroyd BP, Clifton MJ, Wongsiri S, Rinderer TE, Sylvester HA, Crozier RH: Polyandry in the genus Apis, particularly Apis andreniformis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1997, 40: 17-26. 10.1007/s002650050311.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Cornuet J-M, Aries F: Number of sex alleles in a sample of honeybee colonies. Apidologie. 1980, 11: 87-93. 10.1051/apido:19800110.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Harvey PH, Pagel MD: The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. 1991, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Symonds MRE, Blomberg SP: A Primer on Phylogenetic Generalised Least Squares. In Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods. Edited by Garamsegi LZ. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2014.Google Scholar
  45. Pearse WD, Purvis A: phyloGenerator: an automated phylogeny generation tool for ecologists. Meth Ecol Evol. 2013, 4: 692-698. 10.1111/2041-210X.12055.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Perrard A, Pickett K, Villemant C, Kojima JI, Carpenter J: Phylogeny of hornets: a total evidence approach (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Vespinae, Vespa). J Hymenoptera Res. 2013, 32: 1-15. 10.3897/jhr.32.4685.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Lopez-Osorio F, Pickett KM, Carpenter JM, Ballif BA, Agnarsson I: Phylogenetic relationships of yellowjackets inferred from nine loci (Hymenoptera: Vespidae, Vespinae, Vespula and Dolichovespula). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2014, 73: 190-201. 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.01.007.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Katoh K: MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30: 3059-3066. 10.1093/nar/gkf436.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Stamatakis A: RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2006, 22: 2688-2690. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanderson MJ: Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol. 2002, 19: 101-109. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003974.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Garland T, Harvey PH, Ives AR: Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol. 1992, 41: 18-32. 10.1093/sysbio/41.1.18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Grafen A: The phylogenetic regression. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1989, 326: 119-157. 10.1098/rstb.1989.0106.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. R Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2014.Google Scholar
  54. Orme D, Freckleton R, Thomas G, Petzoldt T, Fritz S, Isaac N, Pearse W: caper: comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R Package Version. 2013, 052: 2-Google Scholar
  55. Felsenstein J: Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 1985, 125:1–15.,Google Scholar
  56. Revell LJ: Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Meth Ecol Evol. 2010, 1: 319-329. 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00044.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Wenseleers T, Badcock N, Erven K, Tofilski A, Nascimento FS, Hart A, Burke T, Archer ME, Ratnieks FLW: A test of worker policing theory in an advanced eusocial wasp, Vespula rufa. Evolution. 2005, 59: 1306-1314. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01781.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Ratnieks FLW: Reproductive harmony via mutual policing by workers in eusocial Hymenoptera. Am Nat. 1988, 132: 217-236. 10.1086/284846.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Akre RD, Reed HC, Landolt PJ: Nesting biology and behavior of the blackjacket, vespula consobrina (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc. 1982, 55: 375-405.Google Scholar
  60. Reed HC, Akre RD: Comparative colony behavior of the forest yellowjacket, Vespula acadica (Sladen)(Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc 1983, 56:581–606.,Google Scholar
  61. Landolt PJ, Akre RD, Greene A: Effects of colony division on Vespula atropilosa (Sladen)(Hymenoptera: Vespidae)[Insects]. J Kansas Entomol Soc. 1977, 50: 135-147.Google Scholar
  62. Thurin N, Aron S: No reversion to single mating in a socially parasitic ant. J Evol Biol. 2011, 24: 1128-1134. 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02246.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Spradbery JP: Wasps. 1973, University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  64. Edwards R: Social Wasps: Their Biology and Control. 1980, Rentokil, LondonGoogle Scholar
  65. Martin SJ, Takahashi J, Katada S: Queen condition, mating frequency, queen loss, and levels of worker reproduction in the hornets Vespa affinis and V. simillima. Ecol Entomol. 2009, 34: 43-49. 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.01040.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Foster KR, Ratnieks FLW, Gyllenstrand N, Thoren P: Colony kin structure and male production in Dolichovespula wasps. Mol Ecol. 2001, 10: 1003-1010. 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01228.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Bonckaert W, Van Zweden JS, D’Ettorre P, Billen J, Wenseleers T: Colony stage and not facultative policing explains pattern of worker reproduction in the Saxon wasp. Mol Ecol. 2011, 20: 3455-3468. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05200.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Foster KR, Ratnieks FLW: Convergent evolution of worker policing by egg eating in the honeybee and common wasp. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2001, 268: 169-174. 10.1098/rspb.2000.1346.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Hanna C, Cook ED, Thompson AR, Dare LE, Palaski AL, Foote D, Goodisman MAD: Colony social structure in native and invasive populations of the social wasp Vespula pensylvanica. Biol Invasions 2013, 6:283–294.,Google Scholar
  70. Bonckaert W, Vuerinckx K, Billen J, Hammond RL, Keller L, Wenseleers T: Worker policing in the German wasp Vespula germanica. Behav Ecol. 2008, 19: 272-278. 10.1093/beheco/arm128.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Foster KR, Ratnieks FLW, Raybould A: Do hornets have zombie workers?. Mol Ecol. 2000, 9: 735-742. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00920.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Takahashi J, Akimoto S, Hasegawa E, Nakamura J: Queen mating frequencies and genetic relatedness between workers in the hornet Vespa ducalis (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Appl Entomol Zool. 2002, 37: 481-486. 10.1303/aez.2002.481.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Takahashi J: Evolutional biology in the hornet – cooperation and conflict within the colony. Nat Insects. 2006, 41: 9-14.Google Scholar
  74. Takahashi J, Akimoto S, Martin SJ, Tamukae M, Hasegawa E: Mating structure and male production in the giant hornet Vespa mandarinia (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Appl Entomol Zool. 2004, 39: 343-349. 10.1303/aez.2004.343.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Takahashi J, Inomata Y, Martin SJ: Mating structure and male production in Vespa analis and Vespa simillima (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Entomol Sci. 2007, 10: 223-229. 10.1111/j.1479-8298.2007.00217.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Archer ME: The life history and a numerical account of colonies of the social wasp, Dolichovespula norwegica (F.)(Hym., Vespinae) in England. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine (United Kingdom). 2000, 136: 1-14.Google Scholar
  77. Archer ME: A numerical account of the development of colonies of the social wasp, Dolichovespula sylvestris (Scopoli) (Hym. Vespinae) in England and overseas. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine (United Kingdom). 2002, 138: 209-Google Scholar
  78. MacDonald JF, Akre R, Hill W: Comparative biology and behavior of Vespula atropilosa and V. pensylvanica (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Melanderia. 1974, 18: 1-66.Google Scholar
  79. MacDonald JF, Matthews RW: Nesting biology of the Eastern yellowjacket, Vespula maculifrons (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc. 1981, 54: 433-457.Google Scholar
  80. MacDonald JF, Matthews RW: Nesting biology of the southern yellowjacket, Vespula squamosa (Hymenoptera: Vespidae): social parasitism and independent founding. J Kansas Entomol Soc. 1984, 57: 134-151.Google Scholar
  81. Archer ME: A numerical account of successful colonies of the social wasp, Vespula rufa (L.)(Hym., Vespinae). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine (United Kingdom) 1997, 133:205–215.,Google Scholar
  82. Reed HC, Akre RD: Nesting biology of a forest yellowjacket Vespula acadica (Sladen)(Hymenoptera: Vespidae), in the Pacific Northwest. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1983, 76: 582-590. 10.1093/aesa/76.4.582.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Archer ME: The life history and colonial characteristics of the hornet, Vespa crabro L. (Hym., Vespinae). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine (United Kingdom). 1993, 129: 151-163.Google Scholar
  84. Makino S, Yamane S: Nest contents and colonial adult productivity in a common Hornet, Vespa simillima simillima SMITH, in Northern Japan (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Jpn J Entomol. 1997, 65: 47-54.Google Scholar
  85. Greene A, Akre RD, Landolt PJ: The aerial yellowjacket, dolichovespula arenaria (Fab): nesting biology, reproductive production, and behavior (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Melanderia. 1976, 26: 1-20.Google Scholar
  86. Keyel R: Some aspects of niche relationships among yellowjackets (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) of the northeastern United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University; 1983:1–180.Google Scholar
  87. Makino S: Nest structure, colony composition and productivity of Dolichovespula media media and D. saxonica nipponica in Japan (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Kontyu. 1982, 50: 212-224.Google Scholar
  88. Matsuura M: Comparative biology of the five Japanese species of the genus Vespa (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). The Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Mie University. 1984, 69: 1-131.Google Scholar
  89. Archer ME: Taxonomy, distribution and nesting biology of species of the genus Paravespula or the Vespula vulgaris species group (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine (United Kingdom). 2008, 144: 5-29.Google Scholar
  90. Archer ME: An adventure into the history of a nest of the superwasp Dolichovespula media. Naturalist. 2011, 136: 235-Google Scholar
  91. Arca M: Caractérisation génétique et étude comportementale d’une espèce envahissante en France: Vespa velutina Lepeletier (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Paris: l’Université Pierre et Marie Curie; 2012:1–212.Google Scholar
  92. Rome Q, Muller FJ, Touret-Alby A, Darrouzet E, Perrard A, Villemant C: Caste differentiation and seasonal changes in Vespa velutina (Hym.: Vespidae) colonies in its introduced range. J Appl Ecol. in press ,Google Scholar
  93. Del Re AC: compute.es: Compute Effect Sizes R package version 0.2-2. URL http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compute.es,
  94. Pagel M: Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature. 1999, 401: 877-884. 10.1038/44766.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Seeley TD, Tarpy DR: Queen promiscuity lowers disease within honeybee colonies. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2007, 274: 67-72. 10.1098/rspb.2006.3702.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Baer BC, Schmid-Hempel P: Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumble-bee. Nature. 1999, 397: 151-154. 10.1038/16451.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Jeanne RL: Polyethism. The Social Biology of Wasps. Edited by: Ross KG, Matthews RW. 1991, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 389-425.Google Scholar
  98. O’Donnell S: Genetic effects on task performance, but not on age polyethism, in a swarm-founding eusocial wasp. Anim Behav. 1998, 55: 417-426. 10.1006/anbe.1997.0627.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. O’Donnell S: RAPD markers suggest genotypic effects on forager specialization in a eusocial wasp. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1996, 38: 83-88. 10.1007/s002650050220.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Jeanne RL: The organization of work in Polybia occidentalis: costs and benefits of specialization in a social wasp. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1986, 19: 333-341. 10.1007/BF00295706.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Jeanne RL: Social Complexity in the Hymenoptera, With Special Attention to the Wasps. Genes, Behaviors and Evolution of Social Insects. Edited by: Kikuchi T, Azuma N, Higashi S. 2003, Hokkaido University Press, Sapporo, 81-130.Google Scholar
  102. Hurd C, Jeanne RL, Nordheim EV: Temporal polyethism and worker specialization in the wasp, Vespula germanica. J Insect Sci. 2007, 43: 1-13. 10.1673/031.007.4301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Potter NB: A Study of the biology of the common wasp, Vespula vulgaris L., with special reference to the foraging behavior. Bristol: University of Bristol; 1964:1–162.Google Scholar
  104. Kraus FB, Neumann P, van Praagh J, Moritz RFA: Sperm limitation and the evolution of extreme polyandry in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2004, 55: 494-501. 10.1007/s00265-003-0706-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Mattila HR, Seeley TD: Promiscuous honeybee queens generate colonies with a critical minority of waggle-dancing foragers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2010, 64: 875-889. 10.1007/s00265-010-0904-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. Mattila HR, Seeley TD: Does a polyandrous honeybee queen improve through patriline diversity the activity of her colony’s scouting foragers?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011, 65: 799-811. 10.1007/s00265-010-1083-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Mattila HR, Reeve HK, Smith ML: Promiscuous honey bee queens increase colony productivity by suppressing worker selfishness. Curr Biol. 2012, 22: 2027-2031. 10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.021.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Loope et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.