Open access journal: http://periodicos.uefs.br/ojs/index.php/sociobiology ISSN: 0361-6525 DOI: 10.13102/sociobiology.v61i1.1-8Sociobiology 61(1): 1-8 (March, 2014) An Updated Guide to the Study of Polyandry in Social Insects R Jaffé 1. Why study polyandry in social insects? Understanding the adaptive significance of multiple mating by social insect queens (polyandry) has been a central goal of many social insect researchers for the past three decades (Page & Metcalf 1982; Crozier & Fjerdingstad 2001; Boomsma et al. 2009; Kraus & Moritz 2010; Palmer & Oldroyd 2000). Single paternity resulting from monandry (single mating) is currently regarded as a crucial precondition for the evolution of eusociality in the Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps), since it maximizes genetic relatedness between colony members (Boomsma 2009; Hughes et al. 2008a). Polyandry, on the other hand, dilutes the relatedness between group members because it generates half-sib families within a colony. In consequence, the benefits gained through inclusive fitness can be reduced (Hamilton 1964), and may not outweigh the cost associated with the maintenance of sterile worker behaviors (Page & Metcalf 1982). Polyandry has nevertheless evolved independently in ants, in bees and in wasps (Hughes et al. 2008a). Abstract In spite of the importance of understanding the adaptive significance of polyandry in the social Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps), little consensus exists regarding the terminology employed, the use of different paternity estimates, the calculation of such estimates and their associated error measures, and the way paternity should be treated in comparative studies. Here I summarize previous methodological contribu- tions to the study of polyandry in social insects, hoping that such a compendium will serve as an updated guide to future researchers. I first revise the estimates describing queen mating behavior and paternity outcomes in polyandrous social insects, outlining appropriate methods for calculating them. I then address the errors associated to paternity estimates and explain how to account for them. Finally I discuss in which cases paternity should be treated as a continuous or a categorical variable, and provide an insight into the distribution of paternity across the social Hymenoptera. This technical review highlights the importance of standardizing research methods to prevent common errors, raise confidence in the reported data, and facilitate comparisons between studies, to help shed light into many unanswered questions. Sociobiology An international journal on social insects Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo-SP, Brazil Article History Edited by: Gilberto M M Santos, UEFS, Brazil Received 13 December 2013 Initial acceptance 04 February 2014 Final acceptance 04 March 2014 Keywords effective paternity, multiple mating, multiple paternity, polyandry Corresponding author Rodolfo Jaffé Laboratório de Abelhas Departamento de Ecologia Instituto de Biociências Universidade de São Paulo – USP Rua do Matão 321, 05508-090 São Paulo-SP, Brazil Email: r.jaffe@ib.usp.br Among the many hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the evolution of polyandry in the social Hymenoptera, the genetic diversity or genetic variance hypothesis enjoys most current support (Palmer & Oldroyd 2000; Crozier & Fjerdingstad 2001). The increase in genetic diversity within colonies, resulting from the co-occurrence of worker offspring from different fathers, has been suggested as the most plausible explanation for the evolution and maintenance of polyandry in this group of insects. High genetic diversity among colony members has been shown to increase productivity and broaden tolerance to environmental changes (Mattila & Seeley 2007; Oldroyd & Fewell 2007), increase resistance to pathogens (Hughes & Boomsma 2006; Seeley & Tarpy 2007; Schmid- Hempel 1998; Baer & Schmid-Hempel 1999), and enhance an efficient division of labor (Hughes et al. 2003; Jaffé et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2008). Paternity frequency has been found to be negatively correlated with the number of queens per colony (Hughes et al. 2008b; Keller & Reeve 1994), which suggests polyandry and polygyny (multiple queens) revIew R Jaffé - Polyandry in Social Insects2 are alternative mechanisms to increase genetic diversity in social insect colonies. Colony size, has also been found posi- tively correlated to paternity frequency, indicating that larger colonies might profit more from genetic diversity (Schmid- Hempel 1998; Bourke 1999), or alternatively, that queens heading large colonies need to mate with several males to ob- tain enough sperm (sperm limitation hypothesis) (Cole 1983; Kraus et al. 2004; but see also Jaffé et al. 2014). Finally, a recent study found a negative association between paternity frequency and paternity biases, showing that queens of highly polyandrous species maximize genetic diversity by equalizing paternity (Jaffé et al. 2012). In addition to increasing within-colony genetic diversity, polyandry causes the co-occurrence of different ejaculates in the female’s reproductive tract. This allows sexual selection to operate after copulation, either through the competition of ejaculates from different males to fertilize an egg (sperm competition) (Simmons 2001) or through the ability of fe- males to influence which sperm fertilize their eggs (cryptic female choice) (Eberhard 1996). Post-copulatory sexual selec- tion is known to be a significant evolutionary force, shaping the evolution of male and female traits across taxa (Andersson & Simmons 2006). Understanding the consequences of polyandry for the evolution of male and female traits is thus crucial to gain a complete understanding of the reproductive biology of social insects (Kvarnemo and Simmons 2013). Moreover, this knowledge is essential to design effective breeding pro- grams for commercial species. 2. An updated guide to the study of polyandry in social insects In spite of the importance of understanding the adaptive significance of polyandry in social insects, little consensus exists regarding the terminology employed, the use of different pa- ternity estimates, the calculation of such estimates and their associated error measures, and the way paternity should be treated in comparative studies. Methodological consensus and standardization is important, because it could prevent common errors, raise confidence in the reported data, and facilitate comparisons between studies. Thus, my aim here is to gather and summarize previous methodological contri- butions to the study of polyandry in social insects, hoping that such a compendium will serve as an updated guide to fu- ture researchers. I first revise the estimates describing queen mating behavior and paternity outcomes in polyandrous so- cial insects, providing definitions and estimation methods. I then address the errors associated to paternity estimates and explain how to account for them. Finally, I discuss in which cases paternity should be treated as a continuous or a categori- cal variable, and provide an insight into the distribution of paternity across the social Hymenoptera. 2.1. Mating frequency, paternity frequency, effective pa- ternity or paternity skew? Paternity in the social Hymenoptera is usually reported as observed and effective paternity. While observed pater- nity (K obs ), or paternity frequency, is the number of males siring offspring of a single queen, effective paternity (me ) is paternity weighted by the proportion of offspring sired by each male (Nielsen et al. 2003). Mating frequency, often con- fused with paternity frequency, measures the actual number of males that copulated with a single queen, even if some of them failed to sire any offspring (Table 1). The distinction between these terms is important, because they reflect the outcome of different evolutionary processes. Social insect research has focused on the study of effec- tive paternity (me ), because this estimate reflects the average genetic relatedness among the workers of colonies headed by a single queen (Pamilo 1993; Boomsma & Ratnieks 1996). Effective paternity is indeed the most informative estimate for studies addressing the impact of polyandry on colony re- latedness and reproductive conflicts (Wenseleers & Ratnieks 2006; Sanetra & Crozier 2001). However, effective paternity is not a good indicator of the actual number of males the queens mated with. Observed paternity provides a more ac- curate estimate of the queen´s real mating frequency, even Table 1: Estimates describing queen mating behavior and paternity outcomes in polyandrous social insects. Estimate Definition Estimation method Copulation frequency Number of times a single queen copulates * Observation Mating frequency Number of males copulating with a single queen † Observation Insemination frequency Number of males inseminating a single queen Genotyping of sperm from spermatheca Observed paternity (Kobs ) or paternity frequency Number of males fertilizing eggs and siring offspring of a single queen Genotyping of eggs, pupae or worker off- spring Effective paternity (me ) Observed paternity weighted by the proportion of offspring sired by each male. See ke3 estimate (Nielsen et al. 2003) Paternity skew Degree of paternity bias among the offspring of polyandrous queens. See B-index (Nonacs 2000) * Note that a queen may copulate several times with the same male. † Note that insemination may or may not be involved. ^ Sociobiology 61(1): 1-8 (March, 2014) 3 though processes of post-copulatory sexual selection (sperm competition and cryptic female choice) might prevent some sperm from fertilizing eggs and siring offspring (Simmons 2001), and thus the actual mating frequency of a queen might be higher than the observed paternity. Because of this, ob- served paternity should always be provided along with effec- tive paternity estimates. Mating frequency and insemination frequency should also be provided if available, although they are usually more difficult to assess (Baer 2011). The degree of paternity biases among the offspring of polyandrous females (paternity skew), is another key quan- titative measure needed to address mechanisms of post-cop- ulatory sexual selection and sexual conflict (Den Boer et al. 2010; Jaffé et al. 2012; Baer et al. 2006). Levels of paternity skew may also be the outcome of kin-selection processes, as high paternity skew can bias paternity toward one or a few males, thus increasing genetic relatedness among the off- spring of polyandrous queens (Jaffé et al. 2012; Cole 1983). Providing paternity skew along with paternity estimates, is thus essential. 2.2. General methodological considerations and useful software Paternity is most commonly deduced from molecular markers, by grouping offspring sharing the same father and assigning them to patrilines. A large body of data from studies employing genetic markers have accumulated during the past decade (Boomsma et al. 2009), and this trend is likely to re- main or increase with new technological developments that allow massively parallel and multiplexed sample sequencing (Ellegren 2013; Allendorf et al. 2010). Studies estimating paternity from worker genotypes should be careful not to sample offspring from different colonies occurring together in one colony. For instance, there is growing awareness of “worker drifting” between colonies of social Hymenoptera (Lopez-Vaamonde et al. 2004). A sample of honeybee workers collected at a nest entrance, for example, is usually composed of workers from the study colony as well as drifter workers from other colonies (Neumann et al. 2000). Depending on the genotypes of these samples, drifter workers could be misin- terpreted as workers from a different patriline, thus inflating paternity estimates. It is therefore important to avoid sam- pling drifter workers, as this would simplify analyses and yield accurate paternity estimates. An easy way to avoid sam- pling drifter workers is to collect freshly emerged workers inside the colonies, or to sample pupae or even eggs (Paxton et al. 2003). In cases where it is not possible to avoid sampling drifter offspring, or where colonies have more than one queen, sib- ship reconstruction analyses can be performed to assign workers into queens and patrilines within queens. A particularly use- ful software to perform this kind of analyses is COLONY, a free program implementing maximum likelihood method to assign sibship and parentage jointly, using individual multi- locus genotypes at a number of co-dominant or dominant marker loci (Jones & Wang, 2010). COLONY can be found here: http://www.zsl.org/science/software/colony MateSoft (Moilanen et al. 2004) is a free software deve- loped to estimate paternity statistics in haplodiploid organisms (like the social Hymenoptera), based on co-dominant genetic marker data. The genetic data can be queen genotypes, geno- types of worker offspring from a single queen, or genotypes of sperm stored in the queen’s spermatheca. A particularly appealing feature of this program is that it can also deduce parental genotypes and provide a likelihood probability for al- ternative genotypes. MateSoft can be found here: http://www. bi.ku.dk/staff/jspedersen/matesoft/ Another approach to deduce paternity from worker geno- types is to estimate effective paternity based on the genetic re- latedness between workers (rww). Relatedness between worker offspring of a queen that mated with a single male is rww = 0.75, while relatedness between worker offspring of a highly polyandrous queen approaches rww = 0.25. Hence, effective paternity (me ) can be obtained from the relatedness between the workers of a single queen, following Pamilo (1993): me = 0.5 / (gww – 0.25), where gww is the pedigree relatedness. This approach assumes that the regression worker-worker related- ness (rww) is identical to the pedigree relatedness (gww), and hence should only be applied under no inbreeding. KINGROUP is a free open source program implementing a maximum like- lihood approach to pedigree relationships reconstruction and kin group assignment (Konovalov et al. 2004). It allows esti- mating relatedness bewteen offspring and includes a number of features originally found in the program KINSHIP (Good- night & Queller 1999), which is no longer updated and only runs in the Classic Macintosh OS platform. KINGROUP can be found here: https://code.google.com/p/kingroup/ Among the different skew indexes, the B-index (Nonacs 2000) has been proposed as the standard estimate to be used in future studies, since it can be easily calculated from pater- nity data and shows very robust statistical properties (Nonacs 2003). The B-index can be calculated using the skew calcula- tor available here: https://www.eeb.ucla.edu/Faculty/Nonacs/ PI.html 2.3. Non-detection and non-sampling errors Paternity estimates from genetic data are affected by two main types of error: Non-detection and non-sampling errors. The Non-detection Error (NDE) is the probability of two fa- thering males having identical haplotypes by chance. NDE is determined by the number of markers employed and their level of polymorphism and is an indicator of the resolution of these markers. It should always be reported along with pater- nity estimates to provide a quantitative measure of accuracy (high NDEs imply a low detection power, and thus paternity estimates might be underestimated). NDE can also be calcu- R Jaffé - Polyandry in Social Insects4 lated when estimating the number of matrilines in a colony (or the number of reproductive females). Formulae for calculat- ing NDEs are summarized in Table 2. The Non-sampling Error (NSE) estimates the number of males siring offspring remaining undetected because of an insufficient sampling. NSE will be affected by the level of paternity skew, and hence needs to be estimated based on the paternity shares of each male and the number of workers analyzed. In species with an observed paternity Kobs = 1, NSE should be calculated to indicate the probability of failing to detect a second male, which fertilized some of the queen`s eggs but remained undetected because none of its offspring were sampled. A low NSE would indicate that queens are in- deed monandrous, as no further males remained undetected because of sampling effects. In species with an observed paternity Kobs > 1, NSE should be calculated to estimate the number of males remaining undetected due to insufficient sampling. To this end, a given frequency distribution (Bi- nomial, Poisson, etc.) can be fitted to the real distribution of workers among patrilines. The expected frequencies for each category (number of sired workers) can then be computed, and the number of males remaining undetected because of an insufficient sampling estimated as the expected frequency for the zero or less than one category (Cornuet & Aries 1980; Human et al. 2013). In this case, NSE can be accounted for by adding the number of undetected males to observed paternity estimates. Nielsen´s effective paternity estimate (Nielsen et al. 2003) is already corrected for sample size, so there is no need for additional corrections for that estimator. Approaches for calculating NSEs are summarized in Table 2. 2.4. Is paternity a continuous or a categorical variable? Traditionally, paternity has been treated as a categori- cal variable in the social Hymenoptera, with species being grouped into different paternity or polyandry categories. Boomsma and Ratnieks (1996) first proposed four pater- nity categories, based on the frequency of multiple paternity among study queens and the mean value of effective paternity in the study population. Later studies proposed variations of these original categories, and employed either observed pa- ternity (referred to as mating frequency), effective paternity or the frequency of multiple paternity among study queens, as grouping characteristics (see Table 3). To date, however, there is no consensus on how many categories should be used, how to establish the limits between them or which characteristics to use for assigning species into paternity categories. A recent study retrieved paternity data for 87 polyan- drous species of social Hymenoptera (Jaffé et al. 2012). This data set shows that paternity is not normally distributed, with nearly half of all polyandrous species (N = 46) showing mean observed paternities below 2 (Fig. 1). Two polyandry categories could be created based on this distribution: low polyandry (mean observed paternity below 2) and high poly- andry (mean observed paternity above 2). By so doing, the high polyandry category would merge about half of all poly- androus species (N = 41), with mean observed paternities ranging from 2 to 55. Clearly, informative variance would be lost by this grouping, as selective forces differ consider- ably between species with small colonies and queens that mate with a few males (such as bumble bees), and species with huge colonies and highly polyandrous queens (such as honeybees). Nevertheless, such categorization based on the real frequency distribution of paternity across species is more parsimonious than the creation of categories based on arbitrary assumptions and lacking consensus across studies. Table 2: Non-detection and non-sampling errors. Type of error Level Formula Reference Patriline non-detection Population ( ∑qi 2 ) ( ∑ ri 2 )…( ∑ zi 2 ) Boomsma & Ratnieks 1996 Patriline non-detection Colony ( qi ) ( ri )…( zi ) † Foster et al. 1999 Matriline detection probability Locus N/A € Richards et al. 2005 Patriline non-sampling for Kobs = 1 Colony (1 - p)n ‡ Foster et al. 1999 Patriline non-sampling for Kobs > 1 Colony N/A £ Human et al. 2013 * qi are the allele frequencies at the first locus, ri the allele frequencies at the second locus, and zi are the allele frequencies at the last locus. This calculation assumes all loci are unlinked and under Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. † See corrections for ambiguity in identification of paternal alleles (Foster et al. 1999). € Not applicable. See different cases depending on the inheritance of distinct grandparental alleles (Richards et al. 2005). ‡ p is the proportion of offspring sired by the second male (usually set to three values: p = 0.50, p = 0.25 and p = 0.10) and n is the number of worker offspring analyzed. £ Not applicable. Frequency distribution fitting. For an example see section 4.3.3.5 in (Human et al. 2013). Fig. 1: Frequency distribution of mean observed paternity (Kobs) in 87 polyandrous species of social Hymenoptera (data taken from Jaffé et al. 2012). Sociobiology 61(1): 1-8 (March, 2014) 5 Table 3: Paternity categories as reported in the literature. Category Original description * Reference Single paternity Double mating absent or very rare; population-wide effective mating frequency < 1.05 Boomsma & Ratnieks 1996 Single-Double paternity Double mating occurs in ca 20%-50% of queens; effective mating frequency 1.05-1.25 Single-Multiple paternity Mating frequency above two occurs regularly; effective mating frequency 1.4-2 Multiple paternity Mating frequency usually greater than two; effective mating frequency > 2 Polyandry Multiple mating Oldroyd & Fewell 2007 Extreme polyandry Mating number > 6 Monandry N/A† Hughes et al. 2008b Facultative low polyandry Effective mating frequencies of < 2 Moderate polyandry Effective mating frequencies of 2–10 Extreme polyandry Effective mating frequencies of > 10 Monandry N/A† Hughes et al. 2008aFacultative low polyandry < 2 effective mates High polyandry > 2 effective mates Singly mated N/A† Boomsma et al. 2009 Facultatively multiply mated Usually ≥ 50% Singly mated with a variable minority of queens mated to 2-5 males Obligately multiply mated Almost always ≥ 2 and often ≥ 5 matings per queen * Note that the word “mating” in the original descriptions actually refer to paternity. † Not applicable Phylogenetic studies assessing the transition from mo- nandry to polyandry could benefit from categorizing species by their paternity frequency to perform ancestral state re- construction analyses (Hughes et al. 2008a). Similarly, stud- ies aiming to detect adaptations to polyandry, or the con- sequences of polyandry for the evolution of other relevant traits, could profit from comparing the traits of interest be- tween highly polyandrous, lowly-polyandrous and monan- drous species (Den Boer et al. 2010). However, efforts aim- ing to detect biologically meaningful associations between paternity frequency and other continuous traits or ecological factors would maximize detection power and avoid losing meaningful variance by employing the actual paternity esti- mates, as most sexual selection studies do (Simmons 2001). Even though Boomsma (2013) argued that facultative and obligate polyandry appear to be mutually exclusive lineage- specific syndromes, ecological factors could still have shaped the evolution of paternity frequency within as well as across clades (Arnqvist & Nilsson 2000). Hence, treating paternity as a continuous variable could prove more infor- mative to unravel such factors. 3. Future perspectives The study of polyandry in social insects offers exciting opportunities for future research. Efforts are still needed to understand, for example, how paternity skew has been shaped by the interplay between kin selection and sexual selection (Jaffé et al. 2012). Likewise, the mechanisms and adaptations by which queens and males influence paternity outcomes are still largely unknown (Baer et al. 2001; den Boer et al. 2009; Den Boer et al. 2010), because sexual selection has been considerably understudied in the social insects (Boomsma et al. 2005). Also, very little is known about the conflicts mediating paternity of sexual offspring (Moritz et al. 2005; Hughes and Boomsma 2008), as most studies have analyzed paternity in worker offspring. Finally, understanding the consequences of polyandry for the evolu- tion of male and female traits could substantially improve current breeding programs of commercial species, such as honeybees. For instance, incorporating male selection into current honeybee breeding programs, which thus far focus exclusively on queen or colony traits (Bienefeld et al. 2008), could substantially increase breeding efficiency by improving drone and sperm quality, assuring high queen mating success, and speeding up the whole process of selecting desirable traits. Standardizing research methods could aid such future research efforts by preventing common errors, raising confi- dence in the reported data, and facilitating comparisons be- tween studies. A first step towards this standardization could be to employ a similar terminology and to report compa- rable paternity estimates, along with their associated error measures. The unification of available software into a com- mon open source platform such as R (R Core Team 2013), could also facilitate analyses as well as enhance collabora- tive work. Finally, it is very important to make paternity data available through open access data bases or data repositories, so that they can be used in comparative studies and re-ana- lyzed when new analytical tools become available. R Jaffé - Polyandry in Social Insects6 Acknowledgements I thank Vera L. Imperatriz-Fonseca for general support, Jacobus J. Boomsma, Sheina Koffler, Robin F. A. Moritz and two anonimous referees for constructive criticism, and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo for funding (FAPESP 2012/13200-5). References Allendorf, F.W., Hohenlohe, P.A. & Luikart, G. (2010) Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nature Reviews; Genetics, 11:697-709. doi:10.1038/nrg2844 Andersson, M. & Simmons, L.W. (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21 :296- 302. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015 Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. (2000) The evolution of polyan- dry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behavior, 60:145-164. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1446 Baer, B. (2011) The copulation biology of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News, 14:55-68 Baer, B., Armitage, S.A.O. & Boomsma, J.J. (2006) Sperm storage induces an immunity cost in ants. Nature, 441 (7095):872-875. doi:10.1038/nature04698 Baer, B., Morgan, E.D. & Schmid-Hempel, P. (2001) A non- specific fatty acid within the bumblebee mating plug pre- vents females from remating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 98 (7):3926-3928. doi:10.1073/ pnas.061027998 Baer, B. & Schmid-Hempel, P. (1999) Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumble- bee. Nature, 397 (6715):151-154. doi:10.1038/16451 Bienefeld, K., Ehrhardt, K. & Reinhardt, F. (2008) Bee breeding around the world - Noticeable success in honey bee selection after the introduction of genetic evaluation using BLUP. American Bee Journal, 148 (8):739-742 Boomsma, J.J. (2009) Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality. Philosofical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1533): 3191-3207. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0101 Boomsma, J.J. (2013) Beyond promiscuity: mate-choice commitments in social breeding. Philosofical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368(1613): 20120050 doi:10.1098/ rstb.2012.0050 Boomsma, J.J., Baer, B. & Heinze, J. (2005) The evolution of male traits in social insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 50:395-420. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130416 Boomsma, J.J., Kronauer, D.J.C. & Pedersen, J.S. (2009) The evolution of social insect mating systems. In: Gadau J, Fewell J, Wilson EO (eds) Organization of insect societies: from genome to sociocomplexity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp 3-25 Boomsma, J.J. & Ratnieks, F.L.W. (1996) Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Philosofical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 351 (1342): 947-975. doi:10.1098/rstb.1996.0087 Bourke, A.F.G. (1999) Colony size, social complexity and reproductive conflict in social insects. Journal of Evolu- tionary Biology, 12(2) :245-257. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101 .1999.00028.x Cole, B.J. (1983) Multiple mating and the evolution of social behavior in the Hymenoptera. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 12(3):191-201. doi:10.1007/bf00290771 Cornuet, J.-M. & Aries, F. (1980) Number of sex alleles in a sample of honeybee colonies. Apidologie, 11(1):87-93. doi:10.1051/apido:19800110 Crozier, R.H. & Fjerdingstad, E.J. (2001) Polyandry in social Hymenoptera - disunity in diversity? Annales Zoologici Fennici, 38 (3-4):267-285 Den Boer, S.P.A., Baer, B. & Boomsma, J.J. (2010) Seminal fluid mediates ejaculate competition in social insects. Science, 327 (5972):1506-1509. doi:10.1126/science.1184709 den Boer, S.P.A., Boomsma, J.J. & Baer, B. (2009) Honey bee males and queens use glandular secretions to enhance sperm viability before and after storage. Journal of Insect Physiology, 55 (6):538-543. doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2009.01.012 Eberhard, W.G. (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Monographs in behavior and ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Ellegren, H. (2013) Genome sequencing and population genomics in non-model organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, in press (0). doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.008 Foster, K.R., Seppä, P., Ratnieks, F.L. & Thorén, P.A. (1999) Low paternity in the hornet Vespa crabro indicates that mul- tiple mating by queens is derived in vespine wasps. Behav- ioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46 (4):252-257 Goodnight, K.F. & Queller, D.C. (1999) Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Molecular Ecology, 8 (7):1231-1234. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00664.x Hamilton, W.D. (1964) Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I & II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7 (1):1-16, 17-52 Hughes, W.O.H. & Boomsma, J. (2008) Genetic royal cheats in leaf-cutting ant societies. PNAS, 105 (13):5150-5153. doi:10.1073/pnas.0710262105 Hughes, W.O.H. & Boomsma, J.J. (2006) Does genetic diversity hinder parasite evolution in social insect colonies? Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19 (1):132-143. doi:10.1111/j.1420- 9101.2005.00979.x Sociobiology 61(1): 1-8 (March, 2014) 7 Hughes, W.O.H., Oldroyd, B.P., Beekman, M. & Ratnieks, F.L.W. (2008a) Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science, 320 (5880):1213- 1216. doi:10.1126/science.1156108 Hughes, W.O.H., Ratnieks, F.L.W. & Oldroyd, B.P. (2008b) Multiple paternity or multiple queens: two routes to greater intracolonial genetic diversity in the eusocial Hymenoptera. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21 (4):1090-1095. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01532.x Hughes, W.O.H., Sumner, S., Van Borm, S. & Boomsma, J.J. (2003) Worker caste polymorphism has a genetic basis in Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants. PNAS, 100 (16):9394- 9397. doi:10.1073/pnas.1633701100 Human, H., Brodschneider, R., Dietemann, V., Dively, G., Ellis, J.D., Forsgren, E., Fries, I., Hatjina, F., Hu, F.L., Jaffé, R., Bruun Jensen, A.B., Köhler, A., Magyar, J.P., Özkýrým, A., Pirk, C.W.W., Robyn Rose, R., Strauss, U., Tanner, G., Tarpy, D.R., van der Steen, J.J.M., Vaudo, A., Fleming Vejs- næs, F., Wilde, J., Williams, G.R. & Zheng, H.Q. (2013) Miscellaneous standard methods for Apis mellifera research. Journal of Apicultural Research, 52 (4):1-56. doi:10.3896/ IBRA.1.52.4.10 Jaffé, R., Garcia-Gonzalez, F., den Boer, S.P.A., Simmons, L.W. & Baer, B. (2012) Patterns of paternity skew among polyandrous social insects: What can they tell us about the potential for sexual selection? Evolution, 66 (12):3778- 3788. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01721.x Jaffé, R., Kronauer, D.J., Kraus, F.B., Boomsma, J.J. & Moritz, R.F.A. (2007) Worker caste determination in the army ant Eciton burchellii. Biology Letters, 3 (5):513-516. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0257 Jaffé, R., Pioker-Hara, F., Santos, C., Santiago, L., Alves, D., M. P. Kleinert, A., Francoy, T., Arias, M. & Imperatriz- Fonseca, V. (2014) Monogamy in large bee societies: a stingless paradox. Naturwissenschaften:1-4. doi:10.1007/ s00114-014-1149-3 Jones O.R. & Wang J. (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Molecular Ecology Resources, 10: 551-555. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998 .2009.02787.x Keller, L. & Reeve, H.K. (1994) Genetic Variability, Queen Number, and Polyandry in Social Hymenoptera. Evolution, 48 (3):694-704 Konovalov, D.A., Manning, C. & Henshaw, M.T. (2004) KINGROUP: a program for pedigree relationship recon- struction and kin group assignments using genetic mark- ers. Molecular Ecology Notes, 4 (4):779-782. doi:10.1111/ j.1471-8286.2004.00796.x Kraus, F.B. & Moritz, R.F. (2010) Extreme polyandry in social Hymenoptera: evolutionary causes and consequences for colony organisation. In: Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms. Springer, pp 413-439 Kraus, F.B., Neumann, P., van Praagh, J. & Moritz, R.F.A. (2004) Sperm limitation and the evolution of extreme poly- andry in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 55 (5):494-501. doi:10.1007/s00265-003 -0706-0 Kvarnemo, C. & Simmons, L.W. (2013) Polyandry as a mediator of sexual selection before and after mating. Philo- sophical Transaction of the Royal Society B, 368 (1613). doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0042 Lopez-Vaamonde, C., Koning, J.W., Brown, R.M., Jordan, W.C. & Bourke, A.F. (2004) Social parasitism by male- producing reproductive workers in a eusocial insect. Nature, 430 (6999):557-560. doi:10.1038/nature02769 Mattila, H.R. & Seeley, T.D. (2007) Genetic diversity in honey bee colonies enhances productivity and fitness. Science, 317(5836): 362-364. doi:10.1126/science.1143046 Moilanen, A., Sundstroem, L. & Pedersen, J.S. (2004) MATESOFT: a program for deducing parental genotypes and estimating mating system statistics in haplodiploid species. Molecular Ecology Notes, 4: 795-797. doi:10.1111/j.1471- 8286.2004.00779.x Moritz, R.F.A., Michael, H., Lattorff, G., Neumann, P., Kraus, F.B., Radloff, S.E. & Hepburn, H.R. (2005) Rare royal families in honeybees, Apis mellifera. Naturwissen- schaften, 92 (11):548-548. doi:10.1007/s00114-005-0054-1 Neumann, P., Moritz, R.F.A. & Mautz, D. (2000) Colony evaluation is not affected by drifting of drone and worker honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) at a performance testing api- ary. Apidologie, 31:67-79. doi:10.1051/apido:2000107 Nielsen, R., Tarpy, D.R. & Reeve, H.K. (2003) Estimating effective paternity number in social insects and the effective number of alleles in a population. Molecular Ecology, 12: 3157-3164. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01994.x Nonacs, P. (2000) Measuring and Using Skew in the Study of Social Behavior and Evolution. American Naturalist, 156 (6):577-589. doi:10.1086/316995 Nonacs, P. (2003) Measuring the reliability of skew indices: is there one best index? Animal Behavior, 65 (3):615-627. doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2096 Oldroyd, B.P. & Fewell, J.H. (2007) Genetic diversity pro- motes homeostasis in insect colonies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22:408-413. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.001 Page, R.E. & Metcalf, R.A. (1982) Multiple mating, sperm utilization, and social evolution. American Naturalist, 119: 263-281 Palmer, K.A. & Oldroyd, B.P. (2000) Evolution of multi- ple mating in the genus Apis. Apidologie, 31 (2):235-248. R Jaffé - Polyandry in Social Insects8 doi:10.1051/apido:2000119 Pamilo, P. (1993) Polyandry and allele frequency differenc- es between the sexes in the ant Formica aquilonia. Heredity, 70 (5):472-480. doi:10.1038/hdy.1993.69 Paxton, R.J., Bego, L.R., Shah, M.M. & Mateus, S. (2003) Low mating frequency of queens in the stingless bee Scap- totrigona postica and worker maternity of males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobioloy, 53:174-181. doi:10.1007/s00265- 002-0561-4 R Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 3.0.2 edn. R Foundation for Statisti- cal Computing, Vienna, Austria Richards, M.H., French, D. & Paxton, R.J. (2005) It’s good to be queen: classically eusocial colony structure and low worker fitness in an obligately social sweat bee. Molecular Ecology, 14 (13):4123-4133. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02724.x Sanetra, M. & Crozier, R.H. (2001) Polyandry and col- ony genetic structure in the primitive ant Nothomyrmecia macrops. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14 (3):368-378. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00294.x Schmid-Hempel, P. (1998) Parasites in social insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. Seeley, T.D. & Tarpy, D.R. (2007) Queen promiscuity low- ers disease within honeybee colonies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biol Sci, 274(1606):67-72. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3702 Simmons, L.W. (2001) Sperm competition and its evolution- ary consequences in the insects. Monographs in behavior and ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. Smith, C.R., Toth, A.L., Suarez, A.V. & Robinson, G.E. (2008) Genetic and genomic analyses of the division of labour in insect societies. Nature Reviews; Genetics, 9 (10):735-748. doi:10.1038/Nrg2429 Wenseleers, T. & Ratnieks, Francis L.W. (2006) Compara- tive Analysis of Worker Reproduction and Policing in Euso- cial Hymenoptera Supports Relatedness Theory. American Naturalist, 168 (6):E163-E179. doi:10.1086/508619