spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online March 14, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 1109-1113 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.008508
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Guerrieri, F. J.
Right arrow Articles by d'Ettorre, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Guerrieri, F. J.
Right arrow Articles by d'Ettorre, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The mandible opening response: quantifying aggression elicited by chemical cues in ants

Fernando J. Guerrieri* and Patrizia d'Ettorre

Centre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark


Figure 1
View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Experimental design: ants were harnessed and could only move their antennae and mouthparts. (A) When stimulated with non-nestmate extract, the ant opens its mandibles showing aggression. (B) When stimulated with nestmate extract, the ant keeps its mandibles closed.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. GC–MS profiles of the cuticular hydrocarbons of the four ant species used in the experiments. Some of the identified peaks are indicated as a reference: (1) n-C22; (2) n-C23; (3) n-C24; (4) 2-meC24; (5)C25:1; (6) n-C25; (7) 9- + 11-meC25; (8) n-C26; (9) 2-meC26; (10) C27:1; (11) n-C27; (12) 11- + 13-meC27; (13) 5-meC27; (14) C28:1; (15) n-C28; (16) 10-meC28; (17) n-C29; (18) 11- + 13-meC29; (19) 7-meC29; (20) 7,13-dimeC29; (21) 5,11-dimeC29; (22) 12-meC30; (23) n-C31; (24) 13- + 15-meC31; (25) 7-meC31; (26) 5,13-dimeC31; (27) 3,11-dimeC31; (28) 15- + 17-meC33; (29) 5-meC33.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Dendrogram based on Euclidian distances between cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) profiles of the four ant species used in the experiments. Cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of species of the same genus are more similar (closer) than profiles of species of different genera. The shorter the distance between two profiles, the greater the similarity.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Mandible opening response (MOR) mean (± s.e.m.) for each of the four assayed species. The responses significantly differed among stimuli (F4,384=28.43; P<0.0001). Species effect (F3,96=1.03; P=0.38) and interaction between both effects (F12,384=0.95; P=0.50) were non-significant. Stimuli: solvent (SOL), or extracts from nestmate (NM); non-nestmate of the same species (NNM); different species of the same genus (SG); different genus (DG). Different letters indicate significant differences (Scheffé's post-hoc test, P<0.03 in all cases).

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2008