Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 417–427 | Cite as

How colony growth affects forager intrusion between neighboring harvester ant colonies

  • Deborah M. Gordon


Colonies of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus, adjust the direction and length of foraging trails in response to the foraging behavior of their conspecific neighbors. In the absence of any interaction with its neighbor, a mature colony expands its foraging range at a rate of 0.85 ± 0.15 m per day. Exclusion experiments show that if a colony is prevented from using its foraging trails, the neighbors of that colony will enter its foraging range within 10 days. Exclusion experiments were performed with three age classes of colonies: young (1 year old), intermediate (3–4 years old), and old (5 years old or more). Colonies 3–4 years old are most likely to expand foraging ranges, and to retain newly-gained areas. To examine the relation of colony age (in years) and colony size (in numbers of workers), colonies of known age were excavated. Colonies increase greatly in size in years 3 and 4. Foraging area may be of greater current or prospective value for younger, smaller, quickly growing colonies than for older, larger ones of stable size.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams ES (1990) Boundary disputes in the territorial ant Azteca trigona: effects of asymmetries in colony size. Anim Behav 39:321–328Google Scholar
  2. Alexander RD (1961) Aggressiveness, territoriality and sexual behaviour in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour 17:130–223Google Scholar
  3. Beletsky LD, Orians GH (1987) Territoriality among male red-winged blackbirds. II. Removal experiments and site dominance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:339–349Google Scholar
  4. Beletsky LD, Orians GH (1989) Territoriality among male red-winged blackbirds. II. Testing hypotheses of territorial dominance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:333–339Google Scholar
  5. Brian MV (1973) Feeding and growth in the ant Myrmica. J Anim Ecol 42:37–53Google Scholar
  6. Davies NB (1978) Territorial defence in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria): the resident always wins. Anim Behav 26:138–147Google Scholar
  7. Davidson DW (1978) Experimental tests of the optimal diet in two social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:35–41Google Scholar
  8. Engen S, Stenseth NC (1989) Age-specific optimal diets and optimal foraging tactics: a life-historic approach. Theor Pop Biol 36:281–295Google Scholar
  9. Gordon DM (1986) The dynamics of the daily round of the harvester ant colony. Anim Behav 34:1402–1419Google Scholar
  10. Gordon DM (1987) Group-level dynamics in harvester ants: young colonies and the role of patrolling. Anim Behav 35:833–843Google Scholar
  11. Gordon DM (1989a) Ants distinguish neighbors from strangers. Oecologia 81:198–200Google Scholar
  12. Gordon DM (1989b) Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants. Anim Behav 38:194–203Google Scholar
  13. Gordon DM (1991) Behavioral flexibility and the foraging ecology of seed-eating ants. Am Nat 138:379–411Google Scholar
  14. Gordon DM (1992) Nest relocation in the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus. Ann Ent Soc Am 85:44–47Google Scholar
  15. Gordon DM, Hölldobler B (1988) Worker longevity in harvester ants. Psyche 94:341–346Google Scholar
  16. Greenslade PJM (1971) Interspecific competition and frequency changes among ants in Solomon Islands coconut plantations. J Appl Ecol 8:323–349Google Scholar
  17. Hammerstein P (1981) The role of asymmetries in animal contests. Anim Behav 29:193–205Google Scholar
  18. Holder Bailey K, Polis GA (1987) Optimal and central-place foraging theory applied to a desert ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Oecologia 72:440–448Google Scholar
  19. Hölldobler B (1976) Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:3–44Google Scholar
  20. Hölldobler B (1978) The multiple recruitment systems of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:19–60Google Scholar
  21. Hölldobler B (1981) Foraging and spatiotemporal territories in the honey ant Myrmecocystus mimicus Wheeler. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:301–314Google Scholar
  22. Hölldobler B (1983) Chemical manipulation, enemy specification and intercolony communication in ant communities. In Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neuroethology and Behavioral Physiology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 354–365Google Scholar
  23. Hölldobler B, Lumsden CJ (1980) Territorial strategies in ants. Science 210:732–739Google Scholar
  24. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Kugler C (1984) Ecology of the ant Pogonomyrmex mayri: foraging and competition. Biotropica 16:227–234Google Scholar
  26. MacKay WP (1981) A comparison of the nest phenologies of three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants. Psyche 88:25–75Google Scholar
  27. MacKay WP (1985) A comparison of the energy budgets of three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Oecologia 66:484–494Google Scholar
  28. Majer JD (1976) The influence of ants and ant manipulation on the cocoa farm fauna. J Appl Ecol 13:157–175Google Scholar
  29. Maynard Smith J (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:209–221Google Scholar
  30. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175Google Scholar
  31. Parker GA, Rubinstein DI (1981) Role assessment, reserve strategy, and acquisition of information in asymmetric animal conflicts. Anim Behav 29:221–240Google Scholar
  32. Petrie M (1984) Territory size in the moorhen (Gallinula chlorapus): an outcome of RHP asymmetry between neighbors. Anim Behav 32:861–870Google Scholar
  33. Porter SD, Tschinkel WR (1985) Fire ant polymorphism: the ergonomics of brood production. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:323–336Google Scholar
  34. Reichert SE (1978) Games spiders play: behavioural variability in territorial disputes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:135–162Google Scholar
  35. Rissing SW, Pollock GB (1984) Worker size variability and foraging efficiency in Veromessor pergandei. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:121–126Google Scholar
  36. Rissing SW (1988) Dietary similarity and foraging range of two seed-harvester ants during resource fluctuations. Oecologia 75:362–366Google Scholar
  37. Rohwer S (1982) The evolution of reliable and unreliable badges of fighting ability. Am Zool 22:531–546Google Scholar
  38. Ryti RT, Case TJ (1986) Overdispersion of ant colonies: a test of hypotheses. Oecologia 69:446–453Google Scholar
  39. Schneirla TC (1971) Army ants. In: Topoff H (ed) Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  40. Schoener TW (1977) Theory of feeding strategies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404Google Scholar
  41. Schoener TW (1983) Simple models of optimal feeding-territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 121:440–442Google Scholar
  42. Stamps JA, Eason PK (1989) Relationships between spacing behavior and growth rates: a field study of lizard feeding territories. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:99–107Google Scholar
  43. Stamps JA, Tollestrup K (1984) Prospective resource defense in a territorial species. Am Nat 123:99–114Google Scholar
  44. Taber SW (1990) Cladistic phylogeny of the North American species complexes of Pogonomyrmex. Ann Entomol Soc Am 83:307–316Google Scholar
  45. Taylor F (1977) Foraging behavior of ants: experiments with two species of myrmecine ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:147–167Google Scholar
  46. Taylor F (1978) Foraging behavior of ants: theoretical considerations. J Theor Biol 71:541–565Google Scholar
  47. Topoff H, Mirenda J (1980) Army ants on the move: relation between food supply and emigration frequency. Science 207:1099–1100Google Scholar
  48. Traniello JFA (1989) Chemical trail systems, orientation and territorial interactions in the ant Lasius neoniger. J Insect Behav 2:339–353Google Scholar
  49. Traniello JFA, Levings SC (1986) Intra- and intercolony patterns of nest dispersion in the ant Lasius neoniger: correlations with territoriality and foraging ecology. Oecologia 69:413–419Google Scholar
  50. Wildermuth JL, Davis EG (1931) The red harvester ant and how to subdue it. USDA Farmer's Bull 1668:1–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah M. Gordon
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Population BiologyImperial CollegeSilwood ParkU.K.
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations