Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 405–423 | Cite as

The behavioral ecology of mating in harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Pogonomyrmex)

  • B. Hölldobler


  1. 1.

    The four sympatric species of Pogonomyrmex (P. barbatus, P. desertorum, P. maricopa and P. rugosus) frequently conduct their nuptial flights on the same days; however the daily timing rhythms of their mating swarms differ strongly.

  2. 2.

    Mating takes place on species-specific, perennial mating sites. In our study area the mating sites of P. barbatus and P. rugosus were located on the ground, those of P. desertorum and P. maricopa on bushes and trees.

  3. 3.

    Males mark these mating sites with the secretions of their mandibular glands. Apparently additional males as well as females are attracted by these secretions.

  4. 4.

    During mating activities a strong male competition exists. In P. barbatus and P. rugosus an average of 4–5 males, in P. desertorum and P. maricopa an average of 2–3 males simultaneously, compete, for access to one female.

  5. 5.

    Multiple matings have been observed in all four Popogonomyrmex species.

  6. 6.

    Sexual behavior is regulated by a stimulation pheromone produced in the female's poison glands and apparently also by a species-specific surface pheromone which the males perceive only when they approach closely enough to make direct antennal contact.

  7. 7.

    The combination of distinct daily activity rhythms, partial mating site isolation together with the ability of males to discriminate conspecific females from females of the other species isolates the sympatric Pogonomyrmex species from each other.

  8. 8.

    The mating aggregations of Pogonomyrmex are compared with the lek behavior of vertebrates.



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, R.D.: Natural selction and specialized chorusing behavior in acoustical insects. In: Insects, science and society. (ed. D. Pimental) pp 35–77. New York: Academic Press 1975Google Scholar
  2. Buck, J., Buck, E.: Synchronous fireflies. Sci. American 234, 74–85, (1976)Google Scholar
  3. Buechner, H.K., Roth, H.D.: The lek system in Uganda kob antelope. Amer. Zoologist 14, 145–162 (1974)Google Scholar
  4. Buschinger, A.: Giftdrüsensekret als Sexualpheromon bei, der Ameise Harpagoxenus sublaevis Nyl. Naturwissenschaften 59, 313–314 (1972)Google Scholar
  5. Buschinger, A.: Sexual pheromones in ants. In: Pheromones and defensive secretions in social insects, pp. 225–233. Université de Dijon, 1975Google Scholar
  6. Cole, A. C.: Pogonomyrmex harvester, ants: A study of the genus in North America. Knoxville: Univ. Tennessee Press 1968Google Scholar
  7. Emlen, S: Lek organization and mating strategies in the bullfrog. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1, 283–313 (1976)Google Scholar
  8. Hölldobler, B.: Sex pheromone in the ant Xenomyrmex floridanus. J. Insect Physiol. 17, 1497–1499 (1971)Google Scholar
  9. Hölldobler, B., Wüst, M. Ein Sexualpheromon bei der Pharaoameise Monomorium pharaonis L. Z. Tierpsychol. 32, 1–9 (1973)Google Scholar
  10. Lack, D.: Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. London: Methuen 1968Google Scholar
  11. McGurk, D.J., Frost, J., Eisenbraun, E.J., Vick, K. Drew, W.A., Young, J.: Volatile compounds in ants: Identification of 4-methyl-3-heptanone, from Pogonomyrmex ants. J. Insect Physiol. 12, 1435–1441 (1966)Google Scholar
  12. Michener, C.D.: Observations of the mating behavior of harvester ants. J. New York Entomol. Soc. 65, 239–242 (1948)Google Scholar
  13. Michener, C.D.: Treetop mating aggregations of Pogonomyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 33, 46 (1960)Google Scholar
  14. Nagel, H.G., Rettenmeyer, C.W.: Nuptial flights, reproductive behavior and colony founding of the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 46, 82–101 (1973)Google Scholar
  15. Ruttner, F. Ruttner, H.: Untersuchungen über die Flugaktivität und das Paarungsverhalten der Drohnen. 2.Beobachtungen an Drohnensammelplätzen. Z.Bienenforsch. 8, 1–8 (1965)Google Scholar
  16. Ruttner, H., Ruttner, F.: Untersuchungen über die Flugaktivität und das Paarungsverhalten der Drohnen 5. Drohnensammelplätze und Paarungsdistanz. Apidologie 3, 203–232 (1972)Google Scholar
  17. Schuster, R.H.: Lekking behavior in Kafue Lechwe. Science 192, 1240–1242 (1976)Google Scholar
  18. Strang, G.: A study of honey bee drone attraction in the mating response J. Econ. Entomol. 63, 641–645 (1970)Google Scholar
  19. Wiley, R.H.: Territoriality and non-random mating in sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus. Animal Behav. Monogr. 6, 85–169 (1973)Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, E.O.: Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press 1975Google Scholar
  21. Zwarlicki, C., Morse, R.A.: Drone congregation areas. J. Apicult Res. 2, 64–66 (1963)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Hölldobler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, MCZ LaboratoriesHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations