Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 3–44 | Cite as

Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex

  • Bert Hölldobler
Article

Summary

  1. 1.

    Scouts of the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex barbatus, P. maricopa and P. rugosus which discovered a new rich foraging area recruit nestmates by laying a trail with poison gland contents from the feeding site to the nest. Laboratory experiments have shown that Pogonomyrmex workers are stimulated to follow the trail by the trail pheromone alone.

     
  2. 2.

    The biological significance of the recruitment behavior was analyzed in the mesquite-acacia desert in Arizona-New Mexico, where the three species occur sympatrically. P. maricopa recruits less efficiently to food sources than does P. barbatus and P. rugosus. Generally the recruitment activity depends on a number of parameters of the food source, such as distance to the nest, density of the seed fall and size of the grains.

     
  3. 3.

    The recruitment activity is also affected by the presence, absence or distance of hostile neighboring colonies.

     
  4. 4.

    The use of chemically and visually marked trunk trails which originate from recruitment trails, guarantees and efficient partitioning of foraging grounds. It could be demonstrated that trunk trails, used by P. barbatus and P. rugosus during foraging and homing, have the effect of avoiding aggressive confrontations between neighboring colonies of the same species. They channel the mass of foragers of hostile neighboring nests into diverging directions, before each ant pursues its individual foraging exploration. This channeling subtly partitions the foraging grounds and allows a much denser nest spacing pattern than a foraging strategy without trunk trails, such as that employed by P. maricopa.

     
  5. 5.

    The behavioral mechanisms which maintain overdispersion both within and between species of Pogonomyrmex were investigated. Aggressive confrontations at the colony level and aggressive expulsion of foundress queens from the nest territories of mature colonies play thereby a major role. Observational as well as experimental data led to the conclusion that the farther away from its nest the intruder is, the less vigorous are the aggressive confrontations with the defenders. Only when neighboring colonies are located too close together will increased aggressive interactions eventually lead to the emigration of the weaker colony.

     
  6. 6.

    P. barbatus and P. rugosus have a wide niche overlap, whereas P. maricopa seems to be more specialized in regard to food. This is consistent with the findings that interspecific territoriality between P. barbatus and P. rugosus is considerably more developed than between these species on the one side and P. maricopa on the other.

     
  7. 7.

    Although foundress queens, which venture into a territory of a conspecific mature colony are fiercely attacked, most of them are not injured, but rather dragged or carried to the territorial border and then released.

     
  8. 8.

    Nevertheless foraging areas, even of conspecific colonies, frequently overlap, but aggressive interactions there are usually less intense than at the core areas (trunk trails plus nest yards), which normally do not overlap and are vigorously defended.

     

Keywords

Wide Niche Aggressive Interaction Trail Pheromone Recruitment Activity Aggressive Confrontation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernstein, R.A.: Seasonal food abundance and foraging activity in some desert ants. Amer. Nat. 108, 490–498 (1973)Google Scholar
  2. Box, T.W.: Notes on the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus var. molefacieus, in south Texas. Ecology 41, 381–382 (1960)Google Scholar
  3. Brian, M.V.: Food collecting by a Scottish ant community. J. Anim. Ecol. 24, 336–351 (1955)Google Scholar
  4. Brian, M.V.: Exploitation and interference in interspecies competition. J. Anim. Ecol. 25, 339–347 (1956a)Google Scholar
  5. Brian, M.V.: Segregation of species of the ant genus myrmica. J. Anim. Ecol. 25, 319–337 (1956b)Google Scholar
  6. Brian, M.V.: Social Insect Populations. New York: Academic Press 1965Google Scholar
  7. Brun, R.: Die Raumorientierung der Ameisen und das Orientierungsproblem im Allgemeinen. Jena: Gustav Fischer 1914Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, C.R. and Janzen, D.M.: Ecology of foraging by ants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 231–257 (1973)Google Scholar
  9. Cole, A.C.: Pogonomyrmex Harvester Ants: A Study of the Genus in North America. Knoxville: Univ. Tennessee Press 1968Google Scholar
  10. De Bruyn, G.J., Mabelis, A.A.: Predation and aggression as possible regulatory mechanisms in Formica. Ekol. Pol. 20, 93–101 (1972)Google Scholar
  11. Dobrzanska, J.: Partition of foraging grounds and modes of conveying information among ants. Acta Biol. Exper. 18, 55–67 (1958)Google Scholar
  12. Dobrzanski, J.: Contribution to the ethology of Leptothorax acervorum (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Acta Biol. Exper. 26, 71–78 (1966)Google Scholar
  13. Elton, C.: Territory among wood ants (Formica rufa L.) at Picket Hill. J. Anim. Ecol. 1, 69–76 (1932)Google Scholar
  14. Forel, A.: Le Monde Social des Fourmis du Globe Comparé à Celui de l'Homme, 5 vols. Geneva: Libraire Kundig 1921–1923Google Scholar
  15. Hangartner, W., Reichson, J.M., Wilson, E.O.: Orientation to nest material by the ant Pogonomyrmex badius (Latreille). Anim. Behav. 18, 331–334 (1970)Google Scholar
  16. Haskins, C.P. and Haskins, E.F.: Pheidole negacephala and Iridomyrmex humilis in Bermuda equilibrium or slow replacement? Ecology 46, 736–740 (1965)Google Scholar
  17. Hölldobler, B.: Homing in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex badius. Science 171, 1149–1151 (1971)Google Scholar
  18. Hölldobler, B.: Chemische Strategie beim Nahrungserwerb der Diebsameise (Solenopsis fugax Latr.) und der Pharaoameise (Monomorium pharaonis L.). Oecologia 11, 371–380 (1973)Google Scholar
  19. Hölldobler, B.: Home range orientation and territoriality in harvesting ants. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 71, 3274–3277 (1974)Google Scholar
  20. Hölldobler, B.: Communication in social Hymenoptera. In: How Animals Communicate (ed. Th.A. Sebeok). Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press in pressGoogle Scholar
  21. Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O.: Recruitment trails in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex badius. Psyche 77, 385–399 (1970)Google Scholar
  22. Horstmann, K.: Untersuchungen über den Nahrungserwerb der Waldameisen (Formica polyctena Foerster) im Eichenwald. II. Abhängigkeit von Jahresverlauf aund Nahrungsangebot. Oecologia 8, 371–390 (1972)Google Scholar
  23. Jander, R.: Die optische Richtungsorientierung der Roten Waldameisen (Formica rufa). Z. vergl. Physiol. 40, 162–238 (1957)Google Scholar
  24. Kiepenheuer, J.: Farbenunterscheidungsvermögen bei der roten Waldameise Formica polyctena Foerster. Z. vergl. Physiol. 57, 409–411 (1968)Google Scholar
  25. Le Masne, G.: Les transports mutuels autor des nids de Neomyrma rubida Latr.: Un nouveau type de relations interspecifiques chez les fourmis? C.R. Congr. IUSI, Toulouse, pp. 303–322 (1965)Google Scholar
  26. Marikovsky, P.I.: On intraspecific relations in Formica rufa L. Entomol. Rev. 41, 47–51 (1962).Google Scholar
  27. Pontin, A.J.: Field experiments on colony foundation by Lasius niger (L.) and Lasius flavus (F.) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux 7, 227–230 (1960)Google Scholar
  28. Pontin, A.J.: Population stabilization and competition between the ants Lasius flacus (F.) and L. niger (L.). J. Anim. Ecol. 30, 47–54 (1961)Google Scholar
  29. Pontin, A.J.: Further considerations of competition and the ecology of the ants Lasius flavus (F.) and L. niger (L.). J. Anim. Ecol. 32, 565–574 (1963)Google Scholar
  30. Pontin, A.J.: Experimental transplantation of nest mounds of the ant Lasius flavus (F.) in a habitat containing also L. niger (L.) and Myrmica scabrinodis. J. Anim. Ecol. 38, 747–754 (1969)Google Scholar
  31. Regnier, F., Nieh, M., Hölldobler, B.: The volatile Dufour's gland component of the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex rugosus and P. barbatus. J. Insect Physiol. 19, 981–992 (1973)Google Scholar
  32. Rosengren, R.: Route fidelity, visual memory and recruitment behavior in foraging wood ants of the genus formica (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Acta Zool. Fennica 133c, 1–106 (1971)Google Scholar
  33. Talbot, M.: Population studies of the ant Prenolopis imparis Say. Ecology 27, 65–70 (1943)Google Scholar
  34. Talbot, M.: Populations of the ant Aphaenogaster (Attomyrma) treatae Forel on abandoned fields on the Edwin S. George Reserve. Contr. Lab. Vert. Biol. Univ. Michigan 69, 1–9 (1954)Google Scholar
  35. Voss, C.: Über das Formensehen der roten Waldameise (Formica rufa Gruppe). Z. vergl. Physiol. 55, 225–254 (1967)Google Scholar
  36. Wasmann, E.: Psychology of Ants and of Higher Animals. St. Louis and Freiburg: B. Herder 1905Google Scholar
  37. Way, M.J.: Studies of the life history and ecology of the ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille. Bull. Entomol. Res. 45, 93–112 (1954)Google Scholar
  38. Wehner, R. (ed.): Information Processing in the Visual System of Arthropods. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1972Google Scholar
  39. Wehner, R. and Menzel, R.: Homing in the ant Cataglyphis bicolor. Science 164, 192–194 (1969)Google Scholar
  40. Wilson, E.O.: The Insect Societies. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press 1971Google Scholar
  41. Wilson, E.O.: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press 1975Google Scholar
  42. Yasuno, M.: Territory of ants in the Kayano grassland at Mt. Hakkoda. Sci. Rep. Tohoku Univ. 31, 195–206 (1965)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1976

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations