Paul & Annagiri Plos One DATA

Details of the data collected and analyzed for the publication is included in this excel file. All the data, across the replicates is given in separate sheets in the excel file in a self explanatory manner

CR-RRR data

This excel sheet contains the relocation data for control and random removal relocations across different colonie

Table depicting the generalized linear mixed-effects model (GLMM) for analysing the parameters important for the success or failure of an attempt of brood theft.

<p>The table shows the impact of duration of stay in the victim colony, type of aggression received and status of attempted pupae on the success or failure of attempts. The significant p-values (p < 0.05) are presented in bold.</p

Rate of aggression shown by non-relocating and relocating colonies in different subphases of relocation.

<p>Rate of aggression shown by non-relocating (white boxes) and relocating (grey boxes) colonies is depicted in this box-and-whisker plot. The rate of aggression shown by non-relocating colonies were comparable across the three subphases of relocation phase—search, moving and establishment; but the rate of aggression shown by the relocating colonies were different in the three subphases (Friedman test, p < 0.05). Significant difference (Dunn’s test, p < 0.05) is represented using different alphabets placed above the boxes.</p

Tricks of the trade: Mechanism of brood theft in an ant

<div><p>Thievery is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, social insects not being an exception. Brood is invaluable for the survival of social insect colonies and brood theft is well documented in ants. In many species the stolen brood act as slaves in the thief colony as they take up tasks related to foraging, defence and colony maintenance. Slave-making (dulotic) ants are at an advantage as they gain workforce without investing in rearing immature young, and several slave-making species have been recorded in temperate regions. In the current study we investigate brood theft in a primitively eusocial ponerine ant <i>Diacamma indicum</i> that inhabits the tropics. In the context of colony relocation we asked how thieves steal brood and what victim colonies do to prevent theft. While exposed nests increased colonies’ vulnerability, the relocation process itself did not enhance the chances of theft. Various aggressive interactions, in particular immobilization of intruders helped in preventing theft. Thieves that acted quickly, stayed furtive and stole unguarded brood were found to be successful. This comprehensive study of behavioural mechanism of theft reveals that these are the ‘tricks’ adopted by thieves.</p></div

Comparison of rate of attempts and steals between relocating and non-relocating colonies.

<p>The comparable rate of attempts of brood theft (including both successful and unsuccessful attempts) between the two colonies is depicted in A, and the comparable rate of steals (successful attempts) between the two colonies is depicted in B using box-and-whisker plots. Comparisons were done using Wilcoxon paired-sample test (p < 0.05). Significant difference is represented using different alphabets placed above the boxes.</p

Impact of parameters on the success or failure of attempts of brood theft.

<p>A depicts the duration of stay of the thief in the victim colony during successful and unsuccessful attempts. B depicts the percentage of different categories of aggression received by the thief ant in the victim colony during successful and unsuccessful attempts. The percentage of attempted pupae that were attended by an ant of the victim colony and the percentage that were unattended during successful attempts and during unsuccessful attempts is depicted in C. The numbers within the stacked bars represent the percentage for the corresponding category.</p

Comparison of rate of attempts of brood theft during the stationary and relocation phases.

<p>The rate of attempts observed during the stationary and relocation phases are depicted in this box-and-whisker plot. Significant difference is represented using different alphabets placed above the boxes (Wilcoxon paired sample test, p < 0.05).</p

Comparison of different categories of aggression during the stationary and relocation phases of the experiment.

<p>In this box-and-whisker plot, white boxes represent stationary phase and grey boxes represent relocation phase. Antennal boxing and chase were comparable within the two phases, but immobilization were significantly higher during the relocation phase. Comparisons were done using Wilcoxon paired-sample test (p < 0.05). Significant difference is represented using different alphabets placed above the boxes.</p

Comparative growth characteristics of S1 on Nutrient agar plate

This file contains data and calculations in support of figure 2