Queen-worker conflict over male production and sex ratio in a facultatively polyandrous bumble bee, Bombus hypnorum: the consequences of nest usurpation.

Evolutionary conflicts among social hymenopteran nestmates are theoretically likely to arise over the production of males and the sex ratio. Analysis of these conflicts has become an important focus of research into the role of kin selection in shaping social traits of hymenopteran colonies. We employ microsatellite analysis of nestmates of one social hymenopteran, the primitively eusocial and monogynous bumblebee Bombus hypnorum, to evaluate these conflicts. In our 14 study colonies, B. hypnorum queens mated between one and six times (arithmetic mean 2.5). One male generally predominated, fathering most of the offspring, thus the effective number of matings was substantially lower (1–3.13; harmonic mean 1.26). In addition, microsatellite analysis allowed the detection of alien workers, those who could not have been the offspring of the queen, in approximately half the colonies. Alien workers within the same colony were probably sisters. Polyandry and alien workers resulted in high variation among colonies in their sociogenetic organization. Genetic data were consistent with the view that all males (n = 233 examined) were produced by a colony’s queen. Male parentage was therefore independent of the sociogenetic organization of the colony, suggesting that the queen, and not the workers, was in control of the laying of male-destined eggs. The population-wide sex ratio (fresh weight investment ratio) was weakly female biased. No evidence for colony-level adaptive sex ratio biasing could be detected.

Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions.

The study of alternative combination rules in DS theory when evidence is in conflict has emerged again recently as an interesting topic, especially in data/information fusion applications. These studies have mainly focused on investigating which alternative would be appropriate for which conflicting situation, under the assumption that a conflict is identified. The issue of detection (or identification) of conflict among evidence has been ignored. In this paper, we formally define when two basic belief assignments are in conflict. This definition deploys quantitative measures of both the mass of the combined belief assigned to the emptyset before normalization and the distance between betting commitments of beliefs.We argue that only when both measures are high, it is safe to say the evidence is in conflict. This definition can be served as a prerequisite for selecting appropriate combination rules.