shows that antifungal activity was absent or very low in solitary and communal species but high and effective in social and eusocial species. The solitary species,
Haplothrips froggatii and
H. varius showed no activity except at the highest concentrations, suggesting that even solitary species, when crowded, might produce antifungal compounds. However, we do not know if they aggregate to this density in nature. There was a suggestion that extracts from the communal species,
Teucothrips ater, showed a little antifungal activity in the range of 25–50 thrips-equivalents, perhaps approximating natural densities within curled leaves. However, at high concentrations, there was some evidence that their secretions promoted fungal growth. The social
Kladothrips arotrum and
K. antennatus, and the eusocial
K. intermedius consistently exhibited stronger antifungal activity. As these and all other social and eusocial thrips species belong to the single genus
Kladothrips, it might be argued that antifungal activity is somehow related to inhabiting
Acacia galls rather than to social organisation. However, the pattern of antifungal activity being associated only with social and eusocial thrips species agrees with previous parallel research in bees
[24],
[25]. Further, we have also previously shown that gall tissue provided no antimicrobial activity
[26] so that antifungal defence in these crowded conditions was derived from the insects. Finally, all activity ceased when the group size was 25 thrips equivalents or less, suggesting a threshold for the appearance of this type of defence. Microbial pathogens have shaped major evolutionary trends in defensive mechanisms in many kinds of animals including insects and vertebrates
[32]–
[34] and there is abundant evidence of their impact on social insect colonies, whether hymenopteran, isopteran or thysanopteran
[23],
[33]–
[35]. Early insect lineages in which social traits were being assembled very likely encountered fungal entomopathogens
[14],
[35] that required frontline (i.e. non-immune) antifungal defences. These would prevent infection by killing spores or conidia before they germinated and penetrated the integument; prevention rather than cure. The importance of environmental factors in the origin and evolution of eusociality has recently been emphasised, but the role of fungal pathogens, although well known in the termites and ants
[22],
[23], has received less attention in this literature
[36]. This study strongly supports the view that the shortlist of pre-adaptations (traits) generally considered essential to eusocial evolution, such as the potential for the division of labour, tunnelling behaviour, nest provisioning and guarding against intruders
[36], should include, in addition, the ability to defend against pathogenic microbes.
Our data prompt some further thoughts on the role of fungal entomopathogens in social insect evolution: The propensity for generations to remain together, inherently increases group size and enhances social organisation, manifestly increasing the need for antifungal defence, as shown by the present data and other studies
[21]–
[23],
[37]. This leads to the possibility that specialised fungal entomopathogens present in the geological epochs during which eusociality first evolved experienced the presence of increasingly stronger antifungal compounds, intensified as the degree of sociality and group size increased. Thus, the traits that enabled nascent colonies to combat microbial pathogens appear to have been fundamental to social evolution in thrips. In this context, selection by entomopathogens might have been instrumental in social and eusocial evolution being, in its early stages, driven by two possible defence strategies: the first an increase in the strength of antifungal compounds, and this has been demonstrated
[24],
[26]. However, limits to this response such as resource limitation or self-antibiosis
[38], would require a second strategy such as increasing the
number of individuals producing antifungal compounds. The efficacy of such an increase in colony size would have benefited from the appearance of the other, better-known, social traits. This scenario, for which our data provide some basic evidence, embeds a role for specialised insect pathogens in the early and subsequent evolution of thrips. The question arises as to whether or not antimicrobial defence traits and increases in the numbers of individuals secreting antimicrobials were both fundamental to social and eusocial evolution in the other great social insect groups.