Intranest relatedness and nestmate recognition in the meadow ant Formica pratensis (R.)

By C. Pirk, Peter J. Neumann, Robin F. A. Moritz, Pekka Pamilo. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2001

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Social recognition in sticklebacks: the role of direct experience and habitat cues (2005, background): “Research into social insects, where a great deal of attention has been paid to recognition mechanisms, suggests that individuals use a suite of different mechanisms to identify conspecifics (Carlin and H lldobler 1986; Pirk et al. 2001; Moritz and Neumann 2004).”
Polydomy in ants: what we know, what we think we know, and what remains to be done (2007, unknown): “In polydomous populations of Formica pratensis, spatial and genetic distances were correlated, again indicating budding as the predominant dispersal mechanism (Beye et al., 1998; Pirk et al., 2001).”
Scents of self: The expression component of self/non- self recognition systems (2004, background): “…a variety of social insects indicates that individuals from monogyne (or low-diversity) colonies possess more stringent recognition systems than individuals from polygyne colonies (Janzen 1973, Breed & Bennett 1987, Obin & Vander Meer 1989, Morel et al. 1990, Starks et al. 1998, Pirk et al. 2001).”
Spatiotemporal patterns of intraspecific aggression in the invasive Argentine ant (2002, methodology): “Directional or asymmetric aggression may be prevalent and important in untangling mechanisms behind nestmate discrimination (Stuart & Herbers 2000; Pirk et al. 2001 ).”