Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 309–315 | Cite as

Effect of trail pheromones and weather on the moving behaviour of the army ant Eciton burchellii

Research Article (C.W. Rettenmeyer memorial papers)

Abstract

Most of what we know about the moving behaviour of the nomadic army ant Eciton burchellii comes from Barro Colorado Island (BCI) in Panama. Nomadic colonies raid roughly in straight line during the day and relocate their nests along this path in the evening. At BCI, nomadic colonies raid roughly in the same compass bearing of the previous day, presumably using their pheromone-marked raiding trails as cues to pick directions. Deviations from this direction occur when a nomadic colony fails to move, possibly due to environmental conditions. The generality of these results has been questioned. We studied nomadic colonies of E. burchellii at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica to evaluate the generality of the results obtained from BCI. We measured the angle between consecutive raids, manipulated the distribution of previous day’s raid pheromones around nests to evaluate the effect of raid pheromone on foraging direction, and evaluated the effect of rainfall on the probability of moving and on deviation from the previous day’s raid. Colonies did not follow the same compass bearing of the previous day and formed new raids on areas with previous day’s raid pheromones or without them. Rainfall can explain when nomadic colonies move, but did not explain deviation from the previous day’s raid direction. Our results suggest that caution should be taken when generalizing the insightful results obtained from the BCI population.

Keywords

Army ants Costa Rica La Selva Biological Station Migration Pheromones Rainfall 

Supplementary material

40_2010_140_MOESM1_ESM.doc (32 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 32 kb)

References

  1. Billen J. 1992. Origin of the trail pheromone in Ecitoninae: a behavioural and morphological examination. In: Biology and Evolution of Social Insects (Billen J., Ed). Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium. pp 203-209Google Scholar
  2. Billen J. and Gobin B. 1996. Trail following in army ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Neth. J. Zool. 46: 272-280Google Scholar
  3. Boswell G.P., Britton N.F. and Franks N.R. 1998. Habitat fragmentation, percolation theory and the conservation of a keystone species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265: 1921-1925Google Scholar
  4. Chadab R. and Rettenmeyer C.W. 1975. Mass recruitment by army ants. Science 188: 1224-1225Google Scholar
  5. Chaves-Campos J. 2011. Ant colony tracking in the obligate army ant-following antbird Phaenostictus mcleannani. J. Ornithol (in press). doi:10.1007/s10336-010-0607-8
  6. Chaves-Campos J. and DeWoody J.A. 2008. The spatial distribution of avian relatives: do obligate army-ant-following birds roost and feed near family members? Mol. Ecol. 17: 2963-2974Google Scholar
  7. Chaves-Campos J., Araya-Ajoy Y., Lizana-Moreno C.A. and Rabenold K.N. 2009. The effect of local dominance and reciprocal tolerance on feeding aggregations of ocellated antbirds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 3995-4001Google Scholar
  8. Franks N.R. 1982a. Ecology and population regulation in the army ants, Eciton burchellii. In: The Ecology of a Tropical Forest: Seasonal Rhythms and Long-term Changes (Leigh E.G., Rand A.S. and Windsor D.W., Eds). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp 389-395Google Scholar
  9. Franks N.R. 1982b. A new method for censusing animal populations: the number of Eciton burchellii army ant colonies on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Oecologia 52: 266-268Google Scholar
  10. Franks N.R., Dornhaus A., Hitchcock G., Guillem R., Hooper J. and Webb C. 2007. Avoidance of conspecific colonies during nest choice by ants. Anim. Behav. 73: 525-534Google Scholar
  11. Franks N.R. and Bossert W.H. 1983. Swarm raiding army ants and the patchiness and diversity of a tropical leaf litter ant community. In: The Tropical Rain Forest (Sutton A.C., Chadwick A.C. and Whitmore T.C., Eds). Blackwell, Oxford, UK. pp. 151-163Google Scholar
  12. Franks N.R. and Fletcher C.R. 1983. Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and emigration: Eciton burchellii on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12: 261-270Google Scholar
  13. Gotwald W.H. 1995. Army Ants: The Biology of Social Predation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 302 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 732 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaspari M. and O’Donnell S. 2003. High rates of army ant raids in the Neotropics and implications for ant colony and community structure. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 933-939Google Scholar
  16. Otis G.W., Santana C.E., Crawford D.C. and Higgins M.L. 1986. The effect of foraging army ants on leaf litter arthropods. Biotropica 18: 56-61Google Scholar
  17. Partridge L.W., Britton N.F. and Franks N.R. 1996. Army ant population dynamics: the effects of habitat quality and reserve size on population size and time to extinction. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 735-741Google Scholar
  18. Schneirla T.C. 1934. Raiding and other outstanding phenomena in the behavior of army ants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 20: 316-321Google Scholar
  19. Schneirla T.C. 1945. The army ant behavior pattern: Nomad-statary relations in the swarmers and the problem of emigration. Biol. Bull. 88: 166-193Google Scholar
  20. Schneirla T.C. and Piel G. 1948. The army ant. Sci. Am. 178: 16-23Google Scholar
  21. Schneirla T.C. and Brown R.Z. 1950. Army ant life and behavior under dry season conditions 4. Further investigation of cyclic processes in behavioral and reproductive functions. B. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 95: 263-354Google Scholar
  22. Schneirla T.C., Brown R.Z. and Brown F.C. 1954. The bivouac or temporary nest as an adaptive factor in certain terrestrial species of army ants. Ecol. Monogr. 24: 269-296Google Scholar
  23. Schöning C., Njagi W.M. and Franks N.R. 2005. Temporal and spatial patterns in the emigrations of the army ant Dorylus (Anomma) molestus in the montane forest of Mt. Kenya. Ecol. Entomol. 30: 532-540Google Scholar
  24. Swartz M.B. 1997. Behavioral and population ecology of the army ant Eciton burchellii and ant-following birds. PhD dissertation. University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  25. Teles da Silva M. 1977. Behavior of the army ant Eciton burchellii Westwood (Hymenoptera-Formicidae) in Belem region.1. Nomadic-stationary cycles. Anim. Behav. 25: 910-923Google Scholar
  26. Vidal-Riggs J.M. and Chaves-Campos J. 2007. Method review: Estimation of colony densities of the army ant Eciton burchellii in Costa Rica. Biotropica 40: 259-262Google Scholar
  27. Willis E.O. 1967. The behavior of bicolored antbirds. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 79: 1-132Google Scholar
  28. Willson S.K. 2004. Army ants and obligate ant- following birds: a study of ecology, spatial movement patterns, and behavior in Amazonian Peru. Ornithol. Monogr. 55: 1-67Google Scholar
  29. Wrege P.H., Wikelski M., Mandel J.T., Rassweiler T. and Couzin I.D. 2005. Antbirds parasitize foraging army ants. Ecology 86: 555-559Google Scholar
  30. Zar J.H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis, 3rd Edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA. 662 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentSiena CollegeNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of New OrleansNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations