Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 89–101 | Cite as

Intraspecific competition through food robbing in the harvester ant,Messor aciculatus (Fr. Smith), and its consequences on colony survival

  • T. Yamaguchi
Research Articles


Intraspecific interference competition in the harvester ant,Messor aciculatus, was studied. Colonies of this species were found not to have territories. Some nests were located very close to each other, and the foraging areas of the neighbors usually overlapped. Even though the frequency with which alien and resident ants met was very high in the vicinity of the nest entrances, aggressive interactions between them rarely occurred. However, when hostile workers encountered each other, they exhibited a kind of ritualized combat and the winner ejected, but did not injure the loser. If any aliens entered the nest, some of them were pulled out, mainly by the residents.

Aliens roaming near a neighbor's nest entrance ferociously attacked the residents carrying seeds in their mandibles and robbed them. On other occasions, aliens entered the nest and stole the collected seed. Although seed robbing and stealing occurred among neighboring colonies, there were remarkable differences in the frequency of their occurrence. The results of field observations and experiments suggest the existence of a dominance order among the neighbors. In one instance, extermination of an inferior colony by its neighbor was observed. The raider colony transferred the stored seeds from the nest of the inferior colony to its own and deposited the larvae and workers some distance away from the nest.

The influence of ritualized combat and food robbing on colony activities, and the ecological significance of this interference behavior in terms of spatial distribution and temporal persistence of the nest sites, is discussed.

Key words

Messor ants intraspecific competition ritualized combat territory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abe, T., 1971. On the food sharing among four species of ants in a sandy grassland I. Food and foraging behavior (in Japanese with English summary).Jap. J. Ecol. 20:219–230.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, E. S., 1990. Boundary disputes in the territorial antAzteca trigona: effects of asymmetries in colony size.Anim. Behav. 39:321–328.Google Scholar
  3. Baroni Urbani. C., 1979. Territoriality in social insects. In: The Social Insects, H. R. Hermann, ed. Academic Press, N.Y., pp 91–120.Google Scholar
  4. Czechowski, W., 1984. Tournaments and raids inLasius niger (L.) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).Ann. Zool Warszawa 38:81–91.Google Scholar
  5. DeVita, J., 1979. Mechanisms of interference and foraging among colonies of the harvester antPogonomyrmex californicus in the Mojave desert.Ecology 60:729–737.Google Scholar
  6. Dobrzański, J., 1966. Contribution to the ethology ofLeptothorax acervorum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Acta Biol. Exper. (Warsaw)26:71–78.Google Scholar
  7. Ettershank, G. and J. A. Ettershank. 1982. Ritualized fighting in the meat antIridomyrmex purpureus (Smith) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).J. Aust. Ent. Soc. 21:97–102.Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, D. M., 1986. The dynamics of the daily round of the harvester ant colony (Pogonomyrmex barbatus).Anim. Behav. 34:1402–1419.Google Scholar
  9. Gordon, D. M., 1989a. Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants.Anim. Behav. 38:194–204.Google Scholar
  10. Gordon, D. M., 1989b. Ants distinguish neighbors from strangers.Oecologia 81:198–200.Google Scholar
  11. Gordon, D. M., 1991. Behavioral flexibility and the foraging ecology of seed-eating ants.American Naturalist 138:379–411.Google Scholar
  12. Gordon, D. M., 1992. How colony growth affects forager intrusion between neighboring harvester ant colonies.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 31:417–427.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, J. S. and J. B. Gentry, 1981. Foraging pattern, colony distribution, and foraging range of the Florida harvester ant,Pogonomyrmex badius.Ecology 62:1467–1473.Google Scholar
  14. Hölldobler, B., 1976a. Tournaments and Slavery in a Desert Ant.Science 192:912–914.Google Scholar
  15. Hölldobler, B., 1976b. Recruitment behavior, Home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants,Pogonomyrmex. Behav.Ecol. Sociobiol. 1:3–44.Google Scholar
  16. Hölldobler, B., 1981. Foraging and spatiotemporal territories in the honey antMyrmecocystus mimicus Wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9:301–314.Google Scholar
  17. Hölldobler, B. and C. J. Lumsden, 1980. Territorial strategies in ants.Science 210:732–739.Google Scholar
  18. Hölldobler, B., 1983. Territorial behavior in the Green tree ants (Oecophylla smaragdina).Biotropical 15:241–250.Google Scholar
  19. Hölldobler, B. and E. O. Wilson, 1990.The Ants. 732 pp. The Belknap press of Harvard Univ. press Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  20. Janzen, D. H., 1967. Interaction of bull's-horn acacia (Acaciacornigera L.) with an ant inhabitant (Pseudomyrmexferruginea F. Smith) in eastern Mexico.Kansas Univ. Sci. Bull. 47:315–558.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, R. A., 1991. Learning, memory, and foraging efficiency-in two species of desert seed- harvester ants.Ecology 72:1408–1419.Google Scholar
  22. Krebs, R. A. and S. W. Rissing, 1991. Preference for large foundress associations in the desert antMessorpergandei.Anim. Behav. 41:361–363.Google Scholar
  23. Kubota, M., 1948. Observations on the habits ofMessor aciculatus Smith (in Japanese). ShinKontyu 1:226–230.Google Scholar
  24. Le Moli, F. and S. Parmigiani, 1982. Intraspecific combat in the red wood ant (Formicalugubris, Zeit).Aggressive Behav. 8:145–148.Google Scholar
  25. Le Moli, F., A. Mori, and S. Parmigiani, 1982. Agonistic behavior ofFormica rufa L. (Hymenopera Formicidae).Monitore zool. ital. (N. S.)16:325–331.Google Scholar
  26. Le Moli, F. and A. Mori, 1986. The aggression test as a possible taxonomic tool in theFormica rufa group.Aggressive Behav. 12:93–102.Google Scholar
  27. Levings, S. C. and J. F. A. Traniello, 1981. Territoriality, nest dispersion and community structure in ant.Psyche 88:265–319.Google Scholar
  28. Mabelis, A. A., 1979. Wood ant war: the relationship between aggression and predation in the red wood ants (Formicapolyctena Först.).Neth. J. Zool. 29:451–620.Google Scholar
  29. Onoyama, K. and T. Abe, 1982. Foraging behavior of the harvester antMessor aciculatus in relation to the amount and distribution of food.Jap. J. Ecol. 32:383–393.Google Scholar
  30. Rissing, S. W., 1981. Foraging specializations of individual seed-harvester ants.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9:149–152.Google Scholar
  31. Rissing, S. W. and G. B. Pollock, 1987. Queen aggression, pleometrotic advantage and brood raiding in the antVeromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Anim. Behav.35:975–981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Yamaguchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecological SciencesNatural History Museum and InstituteChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations