| Title |
Queen Control or Queen Signal in Ants: What Remains of the Controversy 25 Years After Keller and Nonacs’ Seminal Paper?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Chemical Ecology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10886-018-0974-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irene Villalta, Silvia Abril, Xim Cerdá, Raphael Boulay |
| Abstract |
Ant queen pheromones (QPs) have long been known to affect colony functioning. In many species, QPs affect important reproductive functions such as diploid larvae sexualization and egg-laying by workers, unmated queens (gynes), or other queens. Until the 1990s, these effects were generally viewed to be the result of queen manipulation through the use of coercive or dishonest signals. However, in their seminal 1993 paper, Keller and Nonacs challenged this idea, suggesting that QPs had evolved as honest signals that informed workers and other colony members of the queen's presence and reproductive state. This paper has greatly influenced the study of ant QPs and inspired numerous attempts to identify fertility-related compounds and test their physiological and behavioral effects. In the present article, we review the literature on ant QPs in various contexts and pay special attention to the role of cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs). Although the controversy generated by Keller and Nonacs' (Anim Behav 45:787-794, 1993) paper is currently less intensively debated, there is still no clear evidence which allows the rejection of the queen control hypothesis in favor of the queen signal hypothesis. We argue that important questions remain regarding the mode of action of QPs, and their targets which may help understanding their evolution. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 53% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#22,248,909
of 24,829,155 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Chemical Ecology
#1,957
of 2,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,336
of 336,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Chemical Ecology
#24
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,829,155 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.