Advertisement

Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 369–380 | Cite as

Memory and chemical communication in the orientation of two mass-recruiting ant species

  • S. Aron
  • R. Beckers
  • J. L. Deneubourg
  • J. M. Pasteels
Research Articles

Summary

The relative contribution of visual and chemical components in the orientation ofLasius niger andIridomyrmex humilis (Argentine ant) workers during mass recruitment to newly discovered food sources is analyzed over short time intervals. While both species orient in response to the trail pheromone, a large number ofL. niger foragers rapidly switch to a more individual orientation, based on their memory of environmental cues.I. humilis workers, on the other hand, predominantly use collective chemical cues. The effect of the number of reinforcements on visual learning and its interference with chemical communication show that olfactory cues always prevail in the Argentine ant. InL. niger, the proportion of ants orienting to visual cues is independent of the trail concentration. Detailed observations of the trail-laying behavior of individually marked foragers show that nearly all theI. humilis workers initially lay a trail, whereas only half theL. niger foragers do so. This proportion decreases considerably with the number of trips performed byL. niger workers, while remaining constant for the Argentine ants. These results are interpreted with respect to the species' behavioral ecology.

Key words

Orientation individual memory chemical communication Formicidae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aron, S., J. L. Deneubourg and J. M. Pasteels, 1988. Visual cues and trail-following idiosyncrasy inLeptothorax unifasciatus: an orientation process during foraging.Ins. Soc. 35:355–366.Google Scholar
  2. Aron, S., J. M. Pasteels and J. L. Deneubourg, 1989. Trail-laying behaviour during exploratory recruitment in the Argentine ant,Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr).Biol. Behav. 14:207–211.Google Scholar
  3. Beckers, R., S. Goss, J. L. Deneubourg and J. M. Pasteels, 1989. Colony size, communication and ant foraging strategy.Psyche 96:239–256.Google Scholar
  4. Beckers, R., S. Goss, J. L. Deneubourg and J. M. Pasteels, 1992. Trail laying behaviour during food recruitment in the antLasius niger (L.).Ins. Soc. 39:59–72.Google Scholar
  5. Benois, A., 1973. Incidence des facteurs écologiques sur le cycle annuel et l'activité saisonnière de la fourmi d'ArgentineIridomyrmex humilis (Mayr) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), dans la région d'Antibes.Ins. Soc. 20:267–296.Google Scholar
  6. Buys, B., 1987. Competition for nectar between Argentine antsIridomyrmex humilis and honeybeesApis mellifera on black ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon).S. Afr. J. Zool. 22:173–174.Google Scholar
  7. Cavill, G. W. K., P. L. Robertson and N. W. Davies, 1979. An Argentine ant aggregation factor.Experientia 35:989–990.Google Scholar
  8. Cherix, D., 1987. Relation between diet and polyethism inFormica colonies. In:From Individual to Collective Behavior in Social Insects (Pasteels, J. M. and J. L. Deneubourg, Eds.), Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp. 155–176.Google Scholar
  9. Cosens, D. and N. Toussaint, 1985. An experimental study of the foraging strategy of the wood antFormica aquilonia.Anim. Behav. 33:541–552.Google Scholar
  10. De Bach, P., C. A. Fleschner and E. J. Dietrieck, 1951. A biological check method for evaluating the effectiveness of entomophagous insects.J. Econ. Entomol. 44:763–766.Google Scholar
  11. Deneubourg, J. L., S. Aron, S. Goss, J. M. Pasteels and G. Duerinck, 1986. Random behaviour, amplification processes and number of participants: how they contribute to the foraging properties of ants.Physica 22:176–186.Google Scholar
  12. Deneubourg, J. L., S. Goss, J. M. Pasteels, D. Fresneau and J. P. Lachaud, 1987. Self-organization mechanisms in ant societies (II): Learning in foraging and division of labor. In:From Individual to Collective Behavior in Social Insects (Pasteels, J. M. and J. L. Deneubourg, Eds.), Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp. 177–196.Google Scholar
  13. Donisthorpe, H., 1927.The Guests of British ants, their Habits and Life-Histories, Routledge and Sons, London, 436 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Fourcassié, V. and G. Beugnon, 1988. How do red wood ants orient when foraging in a three dimensional system? I — Laboratory experiments.Ins. Soc. 35:92–105.Google Scholar
  15. Gérard, V., 1987. L'orientation visuelle et chimique chez la fourmiLasius niger (L.). Mémoire de Licence, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, 79 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Henquell, D. and H. Abdi, 1981. Influence respective des repères visuels et des repères chimiques dans l'orientation deFormica polyctena au cours de l'exploitation d'une source de nourriture.Ins. Soc. 28:47–66.Google Scholar
  17. Hölldobler, B., 1971. Homing in the harvester antPogonomyrmex badius (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).Science 171:1149–1151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hölldobler, B., 1976. Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester antsPogonomyrmex (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1:3–44.Google Scholar
  19. Hölldobler, B., 1978. Ethological aspects of chemical communication in ants.Advances in the Study of Behavior 8:75–115.Google Scholar
  20. Hölldobler, B., M. Möglich and U. Maschwitz, 1974. Communication by tandem running in the antCamponotus sericeus.J. Comp. Physiol. 90:105–127.Google Scholar
  21. Hölldobler, B. and E. O. Wilson, 1990.The Ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 732 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Jaffé, K., C. Ramos, C. Lagalla and L. Parra, 1990. Orientation cues used by ants.Ins. Soc. 37:101–115.Google Scholar
  23. Klotz, J. H. and B. L. Reid, 1992. The use of spatial cues for structural guidline orientation inTapinoma sessile andCamponotus pennsylvanicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).J. Insect Behav. 5:71–82.Google Scholar
  24. Lenoir, A., 1979. Le comportement alimentaire et la division du travail chez la fourmiLasius niger.Bull. Biol. Fr. & Belg. 113:79–314.Google Scholar
  25. Markin, G. P., 1970a. Foraging behaviour of the Argentine ant in a California citrus grove.J. Econ. Entomol 63:140–744.Google Scholar
  26. Markin, G. P., 1970b. The seasonal life cycle of the Argentine antIridomyrmex humilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in southern California.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 63:1238–1242.Google Scholar
  27. McIver, J. D., 1991. Dispersed central place foraging in Australian meat ants.Ins. Soc. 38:129–137.Google Scholar
  28. Möglich, U. and B. Hölldobler, 1975. Communication and orientation during foraging and emigration in the antFormica fusca.J. Comp. Physiol. 101:275–288.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, C. R., C. D. Jorgensen, H. L. Black and J. Whiting, 1991. Maintenance of foraging trails by the giant tropical antParaponera clavata (Insecta: Formicidae: Ponerinae).Ins. Soc. 38:221–228.Google Scholar
  30. Newell, W., 1908. Notes on the habits of the Argentine or New Orleans ant,Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr.J. Econ. Entomol. 1:21–34.Google Scholar
  31. Newell, W., 1909. The life history of the Argentine ant.J. Econ. Entomol. 2:174–192.Google Scholar
  32. Passera, L., 1984.L'organisation sociale des fourmis, Privat, Toulouse, 360 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Pasteeis, J. M., J. L. Deneubourg and S. Goss, 1987 a. Transmission and amplification of information in a changing environment: the case of insect societies. In:Law of Nature and Human Conduct (Prigogine, I. and M. Sanglier, Eds.), G.O.R.D.E.S., Bruxelles, pp. 129–156.Google Scholar
  34. Pasteels, J. M., J. L. Deneubourg and S. Goss, 1987b. Self-organization mechanisms in ant societies (I): Trail recruitment to newly discovered food sources: In:From Individual to Collective Behavior in Social Insects (Pasteels, J. M. and J. L. Deneubourg, Eds.), Birkhäuser-Verlag, Basel, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
  35. Quinet, Y. and J. M. Pasteels, 1991. Spatiotemporal evolution of the trail network inLasius fuliginosus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).Belg. J. Zool. 121:55–72.Google Scholar
  36. Robertson, P. L., M. L. Dudzinski and C. J. Orton, 1980. Exocrine gland involvement in trailing behaviour in the Argentine ant (Formicidae: Dolichoderinae).Anim. Behav. 28:1255–1273.Google Scholar
  37. Rosengren, R., 1971. Route fidelity, visual memory and recruitment behaviour in foraging wood ants and the genusFormica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Acta Zool. Fenn. 133:1–106.Google Scholar
  38. Rosengren, R. and W. Fortelius, 1986. Ortstreue (site allegiance) in foraging ants of theFormica rufa group: Hierarchy of orienting cues and long term memory.Ins. Soc. 33:306–337.Google Scholar
  39. Rosengren, R. and W. Fortelius, 1987. Trail communication and directional recruitment to food in red wood ants (Formica).Ann. Zool. Fenn. 24:137–146.Google Scholar
  40. Siegel, S. and N. J. Castellan, 1988.Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGraw-Hill Int., New York, 399 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Skaife, S. H., 1955. The Argentine ant,Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr.Trans. Roy. Soc. South-Africa 34:355–377.Google Scholar
  42. Stradling, D. J., 1970. The estimation of worker ant population by the mark release-recapture method: an improved marking technique.J. Anim. Ecol. 39:575–591.Google Scholar
  43. Traniello, J. F. A., 1980. Colony specificity in the trail pheromone of an ant.Naturwissenschaften 67:361–362.Google Scholar
  44. Traniello, J. F. A., 1989. Chemical trails, orientation and territorial interactions in the antLasius neoniger.J. Insect. Behav. 2:339–354.Google Scholar
  45. Traniello, J. F. A. and S. C. Levings, 1986. Intra- and intercolony patterns of nest dispersion in the antLasius neoniger: correlations with territoriality and foraging ecology.Oecologia 69:413–419.Google Scholar
  46. Van Vorhis Key, S. E. and T. C. Baker, 1982a. Trail following responses of the Argentine antIridomyrmex humilis (Mayr) to a synthetic trail pheromone component and analogs.J. Chem. Ecol. 8:3–14.Google Scholar
  47. Van Vorhis Key, S. E. and T. C. Baker, 1982b. Specificity of laboratory trail following by the Argentine ant,Iridomyrmex humilis, to (Z)-9-hexadecenal, analogs and gaster extract.J. Chem. Ecol. 8:1057–1064.Google Scholar
  48. Van Vorhis Key, S. E. and T. C. Baker, 1986. Observations on the trail deposition and recruitment behaviors of the Argentine ant,Iridomyrmex humilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 79:283–288.Google Scholar
  49. Van Vorhis Key, S. E., L. K. Gaston and T. C. Baker, 1981. Effects of gaster extract trail concentration on the trail following behaviour of the Argentine antIridomyrmex humilis (Mayr).J. Insect Physiol. 27:363–370.Google Scholar
  50. Vilela, E. F., K. Jaffe and P. E. Howse, 1987. Orientation in leaf-cutting ants (Formicidae: Attini).Anim. Behav. 35:1443–1453.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, E. O., 1955. A monographic revision of the genusLasius.Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 113:1–201.Google Scholar
  52. Wilson, E. O., 1971.The Insect Societies. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 548 pp.Google Scholar
  53. Wilson, E. O. and M. Pavan, 1959. Glandular sources and specificity of some chemical releasers of social behavior in Dolichoderine ants.Psyche 66:70–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Aron
    • 1
  • R. Beckers
    • 2
  • J. L. Deneubourg
    • 2
  • J. M. Pasteels
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Biologie Animale et CellulaireBelgium
  2. 2.Service de Chimie-Physique IIUniversité Libre de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations