Abstract
Anting behavior, the application of ants or ant substitutes to plumage has been reported in more than 200 bird species worldwide. The peculiar behavior is highly stereotyped into two forms: active and passive. However, there is a paucity of detailed descriptions and explanations of this adaptative behavior in the past studies. This is mainly due to the low number of the observations in most of the species that practice anting. In the forests of central Japan, we observed the behavior of birds visited seven nests of ant species, Lasius spathepus and L. nipponensis, belonging to the subgenus Dendrolasius. As a result of observation from 2018 to 2020, a total of 305 visits by 20 bird species were recorded, and 102 cases of anting by eight bird species were confirmed. Of the 102 cases, 96 (94.1%) were carried out by three species: Turdus cardis, Garrulus glandarius, and Emberiza cioides. Anting by the three species was observed at the two study sites, which are approximately 90 km apart, suggesting that they constantly interact with the two ant species. Although any one anting session could not be clearly classified as either completely passive or active, each bird species exhibited behavioral patterns dependent on body size. New behavioral patterns were also confirmed: stamping and plunging. Additionally, in months when temperature and humidity were higher, anting occurred more frequently. This is the first case in which the characteristics of the anting are analyzed based on quantitative data. The observational data support the anti-parasite hypothesis as an adaptive explanation of anting: birds ridding themselves of ectoparasites and bacteria infection.
Zusammenfassung
„Einemsen “ bei Vögeln: Verhaltensmuster und Interaktionen mit Ameisen der Untergattung Dendrolasius (Holzameisen), Gattung Lasius (Wegameisen)
„Einemsen “, die Verwendung von Ameisen oder Ameisenersatzstoffen auf Gefieder, ist bisher für mehr als 200 Vogelarten weltweit beschrieben worden. Diese eigenartige Verhaltensweise ist in zwei Formen stark stereotypisiert: einer aktiven und einer passiven. Aber den bisherigen Studien mangelt es an detaillierten Beschreibungen und Erklärungen für dieses Anpassungsverhalten, was vor allem auf die geringe Zahl an Beobachtungen bei den meisten Arten mit „Einemsen “ zurückzuführen ist. In den Wäldern Zentraljapans haben wir das Verhalten von Vögeln beobachtet, die sieben Nester der Ameisenarten, Lasius spathepus und L. nipponensis, Untergattung Dendrolasius, besuchten. In den Beobachtungen zwischen 2018 und 2020 wurden insgesamt 305 Besuche von 20 Vogelarten registriert und 102 Fälle von „Einemsen “ durch acht Vogelarten bestätigt. Von diesen 102 Fällen fielen 96 (94,1%) auf drei Arten: Scheckendrossel Turdus cardis, Eichelhäher Garrulus glandarius und Wiesenammer Emberiza cioides. Das „Einemsen “ der drei Arten wurde an beiden Untersuchungsstandorten, die etwa 90 km voneinander entfernt sind, beobachtet, was darauf schließen lässt, dass sie ständig mit beiden Ameisenarten interagieren. Obwohl keine einzelne „Einemsen “-Session eindeutig als komplett passiv oder aktiv eingestuft werden konnte, zeigte jede Vogelart Verhaltensweisen, die jeweils von ihrer Körpergröße abhingen. Ebenso wurden auch ganz neue Verhaltensmuster beobachtet: Stampfen und Eintauchen. Außerdem trat das „Einemsen “ in Monaten mit höheren Temperaturen und höherer Luftfeuchtigkeit häufiger auf. Dies ist der erste Fall, in dem die Eigenheiten des „Einemsens “ anhand von quantitativen Daten analysiert wurde. Die Beobachtungsdaten stützen die Antiparasitenhypothese als eine Anpassungs-Erklärung für das „Einemsen “: Vögel befreien sich von Ektoparasiten und Bakterieninfektionen.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, K. Ohkawara, upon reasonable request.
References
Akino T, Yamaoka R (2000) Evidence for volatile and contact signals of nestmate recognition in the Black Shining Ant Lasius fuliginosus Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomol Sci 3:1–8
Akino T, Tsurushima T, Yamaoka R (1995) Antifungal and antibacterial activity of 3-formyl-7,11-dimethyl-(2E, 6Z,10)-dodecatrie nianl the mandibular gland of Lasius fuliginosus Latreille. Jpn J Appl Entomol Zool 39:329–333. https://doi.org/10.1303/jjaez.39.329
Beckers R, Goss S, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1989) Colony size, communication and ant foraging strategy. Psyche 96:239–256. https://doi.org/10.1155/1989/94279
Berggren A (2005) Comparing anting hypothesis predictions to observations of behavior in a North Island robin (Petroica australis longipes). Notornis 52:112–114. https://doi.org/10.1155/1989/94279
Buschinger A, Maschwitz U (1984) Defensive behavior and defensive mechanisms in ants. In: Hermann HR (ed) Defensive mechanisms in social insects. Raeger
Bush SE, Clayton DH (2018) Anti-parasite behaviour of birds. Philos Trans R Soc B 373:20170196. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0196
Chambers AP, Chambers GK (1981) Anting by Golden Bowerbird. Emu 81:112–113
Clark CC, Clark L, Clark L (1990) “Anting” behavior by common grackles and European starlings. Wilson Bull 102:167–169
Clayton DH, Vernon JG (1993) Common grackle anting with lime fruit and its effect on ectoparasites. Auk 110:951–952. https://doi.org/10.2307/4088657
Clayton DH, Wolfe ND (1993) The adaptive significance of self-medication. Trends Ecol Evol 8:60–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90160-Q
Clayton DH, Koop JAH, Harbison CW, Moyer BR, Bush SE (2010) How birds combat ectoparasites? Open Ornithol J 310:41–71. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874453201003010041
Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, Wheye D (1986) The adaptive significance of anting. Auk 103:835
Eisner T, Aneshansley D (2008) “Anting” in Blue Jays: evidence in support of a food-preparatory function. Chemoecology 18:197–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-008-0406-3
Fushihara H (1959) Anting by the Japanese Grey Thrush, Turdus cardis cardis Temminck. Jpn J Ornithol 15:61–72
Hendricks P, Norment G (2015) Anting behavior by the Northwestern Crow (Corvus caurinus) and American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Northwest Nat 96:143–146. https://doi.org/10.1898/1051-1733-96.2.143
Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Hutchinson DK, Kellam JS (2015) A test of the self-medication hypothesis for anting behavior in blue jays. BIOS J 86:144–151
Japan Meteorological Agency (2021) https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/indexe.html
Japanese Ant Image Database (2008) http://ant.miyakyo-u.ac.jp/E/index.html
Judson OP, Bennett ATD (1992) ”Anting” as food preparation: formic acid is worse on an empty stomach. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:437–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00170611
Kuroda N (1957) Anting by the Grey Starling Sturnus cineraceus Temminck. Jpn J Ornithol 14:28
Kuroda N (1967) Study of birds the ecology. Shinshisousha, Tokyo
Lunt N, Hulley PE, Craig AJFK (2004) Active anting in captive Cape white-eyes Zosterops pallidus. Ibis 146:360–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00264.x
Maschwitz U, Hölldobler B (1970) Der Kartonnestbau bei Lasius fuliginosus Latr. (Hym. Formicidae). Zeit Ver Physiol 66:176–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00297777
Morozov NS (2015) Why do birds practice anting? Biol Bull Rev 5:353–365. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086415040076
Moyer BR, Clayton DH (2004) Avian defenses against ectoparasites. In: van Emden HF, Rothschild M (eds) Insect and bird interactions. Andover, Intercept Ltd, pp 241–257
Osborn SAH (1998) Anting by an American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). Wilson Bull 110:423–425
Potter EF (1970) Anting in wild birds, its frequency and probable purpose. Auk 87:692–713. https://doi.org/10.2307/4083703
Potter EF, Hauser DC (1974) Relationship of anting and sunbathing to molting in wild birds. Auk 91:537–563. https://doi.org/10.2307/4084474
R Core Team (2020) https://www.r-project.org/index.html
Revis HC, Waller DA (2004) Bactericidal and fungicidal activity of ant chemicals on feather parasites: an evaluation of anting behavior as a method of self-medication in songbirds. Auk 121:1262–1268. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/121.4.1262
Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM, Konrad H, Seifert B, Christian E, Moder K, Stauffer C, Crozier RH (2008) Specificity and transmission mosaic of ant nest wall fungi. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:941–944. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708320105
Shaw RC, Clayton NS (2014) Pilfering Eurasian jays use visual and acoustic information to locate caches. Anim Cogn 17:1281–1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0763-y
Shaw RC, Plotnik JM, Clayton NS (2013) Exclusion in corvids: the performance of food-caching Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius). J Comp Psychol 127(4):428–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032010
Simmons KEL (1957) A review of the anting behavior of passerine birds. Br Birds 50:401–424
Simmons KEL (1966) Anting and the problem of self stimulation. J Zool 149:145–162
Simmons KEL (1985) Anting. In: Campbell B, Lack E (eds) A Dictionary of birds, vol 19. Buteo Books, Vermillion
Takano S (2015) A field guide to the birds of Japan. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo
Weissflog A, Maschwitz U, Seebauer S, Disney RHL, Seifert B, Witte V (2008) Studies on European Ant Decapitating Flies (Diptera: Phoridae): II. Observations that contradict the reported catholicity of host choice by Pseudacteon formicarum. Sociobiology 51:87–94
Wiles GJ, McAllister KR (2011) Records of anting by birds in Washington and Oregon. Wash Birds 11:28–34
Wright AA, Magnotti JF, Katz JS, Leonard K, Vernouillet A, Kelly DM (2017) Corvids outperform pigeons and primates in learning a basic concept. Psychol Sci 28(4):437–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616685871
Yamagishi S (1971) A study of the homerange and territory in Meadow Bunting (Emberiza cioides). J Yamashina Inst Ornithol 6:356–388
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for Yamashina Institute for Ornithology and Center for Learning and Education at Mt. Kigo for the managements and helps of the field research at Mt. Ota and Mt. Iouzen. Cordial thanks to Seiji Katayama for his help to field observation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The study was conceived and designed by KO. Material preparation and field data collection were performed by KO and YK. TK supported field research, any preliminary experiments and commented the manuscript. KO conducted data analyses and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.
Ethics approval
All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the capturing and use of animals were followed.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Additional information
Communicated by F. Bairlein.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file2 (MPG 57478 KB)
Supplementary file3 (MPG 17254 KB)
Supplementary file4 (MPG 2482 KB)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ohkawara, K., Kamei, Y. & Akino, T. Anting behavior in birds: the behavioral patterns and the interactions with ants in the subgenus Dendrolasius of the genus Lasius. J Ornithol 163, 633–641 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-022-01974-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-022-01974-5