Abstract
Body size is often positively correlated with ecologically relevant traits such as fecundity, survival, resource requirements, and home range size. Ant colonies, in some respects, behave like organisms, and their colony size is thought to be a significant predictor of many behavioral and ecological traits similar to body size in unitary organisms. In this study, we test the relationship between colony size and field foraging distance in the ant species Temnothorax rugatulus. These ants forage in the leaf litter presumably for small arthropod prey. We found colonies did not differ significantly in their foraging distances, and colony size is not a significant predictor of foraging distance. This suggests that large colonies may not exhaust local resources or that foraging trips are not optimized for minimal distance, and thus that food may not be the limiting resource in this species. This study shows T. rugatulus are behaving in ways that differ from existing models of scaling.
References
Anderson P.K. 1986. Foraging range in mice and voles: the role of risk. Can. J. Zool. 64: 2645-2653
Blanckenhorn W.U. 2000. The evolution of body size: What keeps organisms small? Quart. Rev. Biol. 75: 385-407
Creighton W.S. 1950. The ants of North America. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 104: 1-585
Dornhaus A., Franks N.R., Hawkins R.M. and Shere H.N.S. 2004. Ants move to improve: colonies of Leptothorax albipennis emigrate whenever they find a superior nest site. Anim. Behav. 67: 959-963
Dornhaus A., Holley J.A. and Franks N.R. 2009. Larger colonies do not have more specialized workers in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behav. Ecol. 20: 922-929
Foitzik S., Backus V.L., Trindl A. and Herbers J.M. 2004 Ecology of Leptothorax ants: impact of food, nest sites, and social parasites. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 55: 484-493
Foitzik S., Strätz M. and Heinze J. 2003. Ecology, life history and resource allocation in the ant, Leptothorax nylanderi. J. Evol. Biol. 16: 670-680
Gathmann A. and Tscharntke T. 2002. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 757-764
Gillooly J.F., Brown J.H., West G.B., Savage V.M. and Charnov E.L. 2001. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293: 2248-2251
Giraldeau L. and Caraco T. 2000. Social Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Grear J.S. and Schmitz O.J. 2005. Effects of grouping behavior and predators on the spatial distribution of a forest floor arthropod. Ecology 86: 960-971
Greenleaf S.S., Williams N.M., Winfree R. and Kremen C. 2007. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153: 589-596
Harestad A.S. and Bunnel F.L. 1979. Home range and body weight- a reevaulation. Ecology 60: 389-402
Herbers J.M. 1986. Effects of ecological parameters on queen number in Leptothorax longispinosus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 59: 675-686
Jetz W., Carbone C., Fulford J. and Brown J.H. 2004. The scaling of animal space use. Science 306: 266-268
Jun J., Pepper J.W., Savage V.M., Gillooly J.F. and Brown J.H. 2003. Allometric scaling of ant foraging trail networks. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 297-303
Newton I. 1994. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: A review. Biol. Cons. 70: 265-276
Rüppell O., Heinze J. and Hölldobler B. 2001. Alternative reproductive tactics in the queen-size-dimorphic ant Leptothorax rugatulus (Emery) and their consequences for genetic population structure. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 189-197
Shik J. 2010. The metabolic costs of building ant colonies from variably sized subunits. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64: 1981-1990
Stephens D.W. and Krebs J.R. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Stroeymeyt N., Giurfa M. and Franks N.R. 2010. Improving decision speed, accuracy and group cohesion through early information gathering in house-hunting ants. PLOS One 5: e13059
Swihart R.K., Slade N.A. and Bergstrom B.J. 1988. Relating body size to the rate of home range use in mammals. Ecology 69: 393-399
Thompson P.M., Mackay A., Tollit D.J., Enderby S. and Hammond P.S. 1998. The influence of body size and sex on the characteristics of harbor seal foraging trips. Can. J. Zool. 76:1044-1053
Waters J.S., Holbrook C.T., Fewell J.H. and Harrison J.F. 2010. Allometric scaling of metabolism, growth, and activity in whole colonies of the seed‐harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Am. Nat. 176: 501-510
Wikelski M. and Romero L.M. 2003. Body size, performance and fitness in Galapagos marine iguanas. Int. Comp. Biol. 43: 376-386
Wilson D.S. and Sober E. 1989. Reviving the superorganism. J. Theor. Biol. 136: 337-356
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank National Science Foundation (Grant No. IOS 0841756) for funding, Chantal Binder who assisted in the location, tracking and collection of the ant colonies and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bengston, S.E., Dornhaus, A. Colony size does not predict foraging distance in the ant Temnothorax rugatulus: a puzzle for standard scaling models. Insect. Soc. 60, 93–96 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-012-0272-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-012-0272-4