Insectes Sociaux

, 58:559 | Cite as

Recruitment in starved nests: the role of direct and indirect interactions between scouts and nestmates in the ant Lasius niger

  • A.-C. Mailleux
  • A. Buffin
  • C. Detrain
  • J.-L. Deneubourg
Research Article


In social insects, the foraging activity usually increases with the length of food deprivation. In Lasius niger, a mass-recruiting ant species, the foraging adjustment to the level of food deprivation is regulated by the scout that fed at the food source and by the response of the nestmates to signals performed by the scout inside the nest. In this study, we look at the role of these direct interactions (antennations or trophallaxes) and indirect interactions (pheromonal emission) and how they are influenced by the level of food deprivation. At the beginning of recruitment, the relative number of nestmates leaving the nest to forage increases with the level of deprivation. The nestmates’ propensity to exit the nest is not influenced by a previous trophallactic and/or antennal contact with a scout. Our results strongly suggest that the exit of nestmates is triggered by a chemical signal emitted by a scout. Deprivation lowers the response threshold of nestmates to this chemical signal resulting in a more important exit from the nest. Surprisingly, 27% of starved nestmates that receive food from the scout relay the information by depositing a chemical signal before having discovered and drunk the food source. Both phenomena boost the recruitment process. Though successful foragers returning to the nest have a significant role in the recruitment to the food source, we observed that the response of the nestmates inside the nest also greatly influence regulation of the foraging activity.


Ants Food transfer Trophallaxis Starvation Lasius niger 



A. Buffin is a F.R.I.A. researcher (Formation pour la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture). C. Detrain and J.L. Deneubourg are research associates from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research and were financially supported by the Fund for Joint Basic Research (Grant 2.4510.01). A.C. Mailleux is financially supported by the Institut d’encouragement de la Recherche Scientifique et de l’Innovation de Bruxelles. This is publication BRC158 of the Biodiversity Research Centre at Université Catholique de Louvain.


  1. Anderson C. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 1999. Task partitioning in insect societies. I. Effect of colony size on queueing delay and colony ergonomic efficiency. Am. Nat. 154: 521-535Google Scholar
  2. Auclair J.L. 1963. Aphid feeding and nutrition. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 8: 439-489Google Scholar
  3. Beckers R., Deneubourg J.-L. and Goss S. 1993. Modulation of trail-laying in the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and its role in the collective selection of a food source. J. Insect Behav. 6: 751-759Google Scholar
  4. Baroni-Urbani C., Buser M.W. and Schilliger E. 1988. Substrate vibration during recruitment in ant social organization. Insect. Soc. 35: 241-250Google Scholar
  5. Buffin A., Denis D., Van Simaeys G., Goldman S. and Deneubourg J.-L. 2009. Feeding and stocking up: radio-labelled food reveals exchange patterns in ants. Plos One 4: e5919Google Scholar
  6. Cartar R.V. and Dill L.M. 1990. Why are bumblebees risk sensitive foragers? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26: 121-127Google Scholar
  7. Cassill D.L. 2003. Rules of supply and demand regulate recruitment to food in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54: 441-450Google Scholar
  8. Cassill D.L. and Tschinkel W.R. 1999a. Information flow during social feeding in ant societies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29: 255-261Google Scholar
  9. Cassill D.L. and Tschinkel W.R. 1999b. Regulation of diet in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. J. Insect Behav. 12: 307-328Google Scholar
  10. Cook S.C., Eubanks M.D., Gold R.E. and Behmer S.T. 2010. Colony-level macronutrient regulation in ants: mechanisms, hoarding and associated costs. Anim. Behav. 79: 429-437Google Scholar
  11. Cosens D. and Toussaint N. 1986. The dynamic nature of the activities of the wood ant Formica aquilonia foraging to static food resource within a laboratory habitat. Physiol. Entomol. 11: 383-395Google Scholar
  12. Devigne C. and Detrain C. 2002. Collective exploration and area making in the ant Lasius niger. Insect. Soc. 49: 357-362Google Scholar
  13. De Biseau J.C. and Pasteels J.M. 1994. Regulated food recruitment through individual behavior of scouts in the ant, Myrmica sabuleti (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Insect Behav. 7: 767-777Google Scholar
  14. De Biseau J.C. and Pasteels J.M. 2000. Response thresholds to recruitment signals and the regulation of foraging intensity in the ant Myrmica sabuleti (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Behav. Proc. 48: 137-148Google Scholar
  15. De Marco R.J. 2006. How bees tune their dancing according to their colony’s nectar influx: re-examining the role of the food-receivers’ ‘eagerness’. J. Exp. Biol. 209: 421-432Google Scholar
  16. Dussutour A. and Simpson S.J. 2009. Communal nutrition in ants. Curr. Biol. 19: 740-744Google Scholar
  17. Farina W.M. and Grüter C. 2009. Trophallaxis – a mechanism of information transfer. In: Food Exploitation by Social Insects: Ecological, Behavioral, and Theoretical Approaches (Hrncir M. and Jarau S., Eds). Boca Raton, CRC Press. pp 173-187Google Scholar
  18. Gotceitas V. and Godin J.-G. 2004. Foraging under the risk of predation in juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.): effects of social status and hunger. Anim. Behav. 67: 1083-1088Google Scholar
  19. Hart A.G. and Ratnieks F.L.W. 2001. Task partitioning, division of labour and nest compartmentalisation collectively isolate hazardous waste in the leafcutting ant Atta cephalotes. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49: 387-392Google Scholar
  20. Hölldobler B. 1971. Recruitment behavior in Camponotus socius (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Z. Vergl. Physiol. 75: 123-142Google Scholar
  21. Hölldobler B. 1985. Liquid food transmission and antennation signals in ponerine ants. Isr. J. Entomol. 14: 89-99Google Scholar
  22. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. Harvard Univ. Press Cambridge, MA. 732 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Howard D.F. and Tschinkel W.R. 1980. The effect of colony size and deprivation on food flow in the fire ant Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7: 293-300Google Scholar
  24. Josens R.B. and Roces F. 2000. Foraging in the ant Camponotus mus: nectar-intake and crop filling depend on colony deprivation. J. Insect Physiol. 46: 1103-1110Google Scholar
  25. Kaplan I. and Eubanks M. 2005. Aphids alter the community-wide impact of fire ants. Ecology 86: 1640-1649Google Scholar
  26. Lenoir A. 1979. Le comportement alimentaire et la division du travail chez la fourmi Lasius niger. Bull. Biol. Fr. Belg. 113: 79-314Google Scholar
  27. Liefke C., Hölldober B. and Maschwitz U. 2001. Recruitment behavior in the ant genus Polyrhachis (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). J. Insect Behav. 14: 637-659Google Scholar
  28. Mc Cabe S., Farina W.M. and Josens R.B. 2006. Antennation of nectar-receivers encodes colony needs and food-source profitability in the ant Camponotus mus. Insect. Soc. 53: 356-361Google Scholar
  29. Mailleux A.-C., Detrain C. and Deneubourg J.-L. 2003. Regulation of ants’ foraging to resource productivity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 1609-1616Google Scholar
  30. Mailleux A.-C., Detrain C. and Deneubourg J.-L. 2006. Deprivation drives a threshold triggering communication. J. Exp. Biol. 209: 4224-4229Google Scholar
  31. Mailleux A.-C., Detrain C. and Deneubourg J.-L. 2010. Impact of starvation on Lasius niger exploration. Ethology 116: 248-256Google Scholar
  32. Nonacs P. and Dill L.M. 1990. Mortality risk vs food quality trade-offs in a common currency: ant patch preferences. Ecology 71: 1886-1892Google Scholar
  33. Portha S., Deneubourg J.-L. and Detrain C. 2002 Self-organized asymmetries in ant foraging: a functional response to food type and colony needs. Behav. Ecol. 13: 776-781Google Scholar
  34. Roces F. and Nuñez J.A. 1993. Information about food quality influences load-size selection in recruited leaf-cutting ants. Anim. Behav. 45: 135-143Google Scholar
  35. Roces F. and Hölldobler B. 1996. Use of stridulation in foraging leaf cutting ants: Mechanical support during cutting or short range recruitment signal? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 39: 293-299Google Scholar
  36. Sakata H. 1995. Density-dependant predation of the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attended aphids Lachnus tropicallis and Myzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphididae). Res. Popul. Ecol. 37: 159-164Google Scholar
  37. Schafer R.J., Holmes S. and Gordon D.M. 2006. Forager activation and food availability in harvester ants. Anim. Behav. 71: 815-822Google Scholar
  38. Schulz D.J., Huang Z.Y. and Robinson G.E. 1998. Effects of colony food shortage on behavioural development in honeybees. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42: 295-303Google Scholar
  39. Schulz D.J., Vermiglio M.J., Huang Z.Y. and Robinson G.E. 2002. Effects of colony food shortage on social action in honeybees. Insect. Soc. 49: 50-55Google Scholar
  40. Seeley T.D. 1989. Social foraging in honey bees: how nectar foragers assess their colony’s nutritional status. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24: 181-199Google Scholar
  41. Sendova-Franks A.B., Hayward R.K., Wulf B., Klimek T., James R., Planque R., Britton N.F. and Franks N.R. 2010. Emergency networking: famine relief in ant colonies. Anim. Behav. 79: 473-485Google Scholar
  42. Smiseth P.T. and Moore A.J. 2004. Signaling of hunger when offspring forage by both begging and self-feeding. Anim. Behav. 67: 1083-1088Google Scholar
  43. Stephens D.W. and Krebs J.R. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA. 247 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Stuart R.J. and Moffett M.W. 1994. Recruitment communication and pheromone trails in the Neotropical ants, Leptothorax (Nesomyrmex) spininodis and L (N.). echinatinodis. Experientia 50: 850-852Google Scholar
  45. Szlep-Fessel R. 1970. The regulatory mechanism in mass foraging and the recruitment of soldiers Pheidole. Insect. Soc. 17: 233-244Google Scholar
  46. Sudd J.H. and Sudd M.E. 1985. Seasonal changes in the response of wood-ants (Formica lugubris) to sucrose baits. Ecol. Entomol. 10: 89-97Google Scholar
  47. Traniello J.F. 1977. Resource assessment, recruitment behavior,and organization of cooperative prey retrieval in the ant Formica schaufussi (Hymenoptera). J. Insect Behav. 11: 1-22Google Scholar
  48. Theraulaz G., Gervet J. and Semenoff Tian-Chanski S. 1991. Social regulation of foraging activities in Polistes dominulus Christ: a systemic approach to behavioural organization. Behaviour 116: 292-320Google Scholar
  49. Toth A.L., Kantarovitch S., Meisel A.F. and Robinson G.E. 2005. Nutritional status influences socially regulated foraging ontogeny in honey bees. J. Exp. Biol. 208: 4641-4649Google Scholar
  50. Völkl W., Woodring J., Fisher M., Lorenz M.W. and Hoffmann K.H. 1999. Ant-aphid mutualisms: the impact of honeydew production and honeydew sugar composition on ant preferences. Oecologia 118: 483-491Google Scholar
  51. Wallis D.I. 1962. The relation between hunger, activity and worker function in an ant colony. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. B 139: 589-605Google Scholar
  52. Wheeler W.M. 1910. The Ants. Their Structure, Development and Behaviour. New York: Columbia University Press. 663 ppGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson E.O. 1962. Chemical communication among workers of the fire ant Solenopsis saevissima (Fr. Smith) 1. The organization of mass-foraging. Anim. Behav. 10: 134-147Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A.-C. Mailleux
    • 1
  • A. Buffin
    • 2
  • C. Detrain
    • 2
  • J.-L. Deneubourg
    • 2
  1. 1.Unit of Ecology and BiogeographyCatholic University of LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.Service d’Ecologie SocialeUniversité libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations