4.5 Article

Interpopulation variation in status signalling in the paper wasp Polistes dominulus

Journal

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
Volume 81, Issue 1, Pages 205-209

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.10.002

Keywords

competition; Europe; Polistes dominulus; RHP; signalling; status badge; variation

Funding

  1. University of Sussex
  2. Natural Environment Research Council
  3. NERC [NE/E017894/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/E017894/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Contests between individuals over resources may be costly in terms of both time and energy expended and the risk of injury. Signals of status, or 'status badges', are thought to have evolved to minimize these costs by providing information about an individual's fighting ability or resource-holding potential (RHP) at the start of a contest. Studies on recently established North American populations of the paper wasp Polistes dominulus have demonstrated the existence of a status badge, in the form of black clypeal patterns, and have shown that rivals attend to these patterns during competitive interactions. However, observational data from studies in this wasp's native European range have failed to demonstrate a strong link between clypeal patterning and RHP. We undertook the first direct test of status signalling in a European population of P. dominulus, by testing receiver responses to clypeal pattern manipulations in a competitive foraging context. We found no evidence that individuals assessed rivals using the clypeal 'badge'. We discuss possible reasons for variation in signal use between the American and European populations, including genetic drift and environmental effects of the development and transmission of the signal. (C) 2010 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available