Skip to main content
Log in

Recruitment Strategies and Foraging Patterns of Ants: What Shapes Them and Why?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Indian Institute of Science Aims and scope

Abstract

The effectiveness of procuring food by any ant colony depends upon the strategies adopted while recruiting the foragers to fetch food and the geometry of paths that these recruited foragers employ for searching and harvesting the food. This paper analyzes these recruitment strategies and search paths adopted by ants, and attempts a synthesis of the possible evolutionary process shaping them. Ants exhibit a wide range of recruitment strategies that differ in the size of the foraging team and the interactions among its members. It is shown that these diverse strategies are strongly associated with the size of the ant colony. Small colonies recruit individual foragers, while large colonies recruit foragers en mass; moderate size colonies exhibit a mix of these strategies. This association between the colony size and foraging group is argued to be a consequence of the crisis in processing information in large colonies. While in small colonies, collective decisions to recruit individuals (and small groups) can be easily arrived at, by the ants at the colony level, in large colonies, the tsunami of information flow in space and time creates a crisis for integrating and processing the data. As a result, the task of recruitment is inevitably shifted from the nest level to the foraging paths where individuals are entrusted to self-recruit based on the information gathered by them; this leads to a seamless and spatially dynamic recruitment of workers resulting in an en mass foraging strategy. Further, the size of the recruited team is also shown to be shaping the geometry of the foraging paths. While individual foragers search and harvest food in a circular or sinusoidal movement pattern, the en mass foragers adopt trails or columns that grow and branch out in a bifurcating system. These foraging paths adopted by different group sizes are shown to be very effective in ‘managing’ the complex substrates they forage on, and also to be very efficient in maximizing the benefit-to-cost ratios of foraging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The work is based on past studies.

Notes

  1. Our studies have shown that once an ant has harvested honey dews on an inflorescence, the new ants arriving immediately on to it do not generally proceed to forage as extent of honey dew available would be very less; they abandon it and move on to another inflorescence. However, ants arriving later (the critical interval of time not studied), sample a few branches, and if the harvest on them is ‘good’, they continue to forage.

References

  1. Ashwathi P, Puspita B, Ganeshaiah KN (2020) Structural organization and cohesiveness of foraging groups in Camponotus sericius (Fabricius) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): locally regulated or self-organized? BMC Zool 5(13):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40850-020-00062-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cody ML (1971) Finch flocks in the Mohave desert. Theor Popul Biol 2:142–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Davidson JD, Gordon DM (2017) Spatial organization and interactions of harvester ants during foraging activity. J R Soc Interface 14:20170413. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Deneubourg JL, Aron S, Goss S, Pasteels JM, Duerinck G (1986) Random behavior, amplification process and number of participants: how they contribute to the foraging properties of ants. Phys D 22:176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Deneubourg JL, Goss SS, Franks N, Pasteels JM (1989) The blind leading the blind: modeling chemically mediated army ant raid patterns. J Insect Behav 2:719–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Detrain C, Deneubourg JL (2006) Self-organized structures in a super-organism: do ants “behave” like molecules? Science direct. Phys Life Rev 3:162–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Falcon-Corte’s A, Boyer D, Ramos-Ferna’ndez G (2019) Collective learning from individual experiences and information transfer during group foraging. J R Soc Interface 16:20180803. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Farji-Brener AG, Chinchilla F, Natalia UM, Ocasio-Torres ME, Chauta-Mellizo A, Acosta-Rojas D, Marinaro S, de Mónica Torres C, Amador-Vargas S (2015) Branching angles reflect a trade-off between reducing trail maintenance costs or travel distances in leaf-cutting ants. Ecology 96(2):510–7. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Franks NR, Fletcher CR (1983) Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and migration: Eciton burchelli on Baro Colorado Island Panama. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Franks NR (1989) Army ants: a collective intelligence. Am Sci 77:138–145

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ganeshaiah KN, Uma Shaanker R (1988) Evolution of unique seed maturity pattern in Croton bonplandianum Baill strengthens ant-plant mutualism for seed dispersal. Oecologia 77:130–134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ganeshaiah KN, Veena T (1988) Plant design and non-random foraging by ants on Croton banplandianum, Baill (Euphorbiaceae). Anim Behav 36:1683–1690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ganeshaiah KN, Veena T (1991) Topology of the foraging trails of Leptogenys processionalis—why are they branched? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hassel MP, Southwood TRS (1978) Foraging strategies of insects. Ann Rev Ecol and Syst 9:75–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lai LC, Chao TY, Chiu MC (2022) Searching behavior in the tropical fire ant Solenopsis geminate (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zool Stud 61:e26. https://doi.org/10.6620/ZS.2022.61-26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mirenda JT, Topoff H (1980) Nomadic begaviour of army ants in a desert-grassland habitat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging: movement patterns of bumble bees between inflorescences. Theor Popul Biol 133:72–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pyke GH (1978) Are animals efficient harvesters? Anim Behav 26:241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stephens DW, Krebs JH (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stickland TR, Britton NF, Franks NR (1999) Models of information flow in ant foraging: the benefits of both attractive and repulsive signals. In: Detrain C, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (eds) Information processing in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8739-7_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Stevens PS (1973) Space, architecture and biology. Syst Zool 22:405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stevens PS (1974) Patterns in nature. Little Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sudd JH, Franks NR (1987) The behavioural ecology of ants, a tertiary level biology series. Blackie, Glasgow, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Traniello JFA (1977) Recruitment behavior, orientation and organization in the carpenter ant Camponotus pensnylvanicus, degeer (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:61–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Traniello JFA (1989) Foraging strategies of ants. Ann Rev Entomol 34:191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Veena T, Ganeshaiah KN (1991) Non random search patterns of ants foraging on honeydew of aphids in cashew inflorescences. Anim Behav 41:7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Veena T, Kumar ARV, Ganeshaiah KN (1989) Factors affecting ant (Formicidae: Hymenoptera) visits to the extra floral nectaries of Croton bonplandianum Baill. Proc Indian Acad Sci (Animal Sci) 98(1):57–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lanan M (2014) Spatiotemporal resource distribution and foraging strategies of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 20:53–70

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zimmerman M (1979) Optimal foraging: a case for random movement. Oecologia 43:261–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zimmerman M (1981) Optimal foraging, plant density and the marginal value theorem. Oecologia 49:148–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zimmerman M (1982) Optimal foraging: random movement by pollen collecting bumblebees. Oecologia 53:394–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. N. Ganeshaiah.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ganeshaiah, K.N. Recruitment Strategies and Foraging Patterns of Ants: What Shapes Them and Why?. J Indian Inst Sci 103, 1129–1141 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-023-00403-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-023-00403-7

Navigation