Colony size does not predict foraging distance in the ant Temnothorax rugatulus: a puzzle for standard scaling models RESEARCH ARTICLE First Online: 25 November 2012 Received: 14 April 2012 Revised: 12 November 2012 Accepted: 15 November 2012 DOI:
Cite this article as: Bengston, S.E. & Dornhaus, A. Insect. Soc. (2013) 60: 93. doi:10.1007/s00040-012-0272-4 Abstract
Body size is often positively correlated with ecologically relevant traits such as fecundity, survival, resource requirements, and home range size. Ant colonies, in some respects, behave like organisms, and their colony size is thought to be a significant predictor of many behavioral and ecological traits similar to body size in unitary organisms. In this study, we test the relationship between colony size and field foraging distance in the ant species
Temnothorax rugatulus. These ants forage in the leaf litter presumably for small arthropod prey. We found colonies did not differ significantly in their foraging distances, and colony size is not a significant predictor of foraging distance. This suggests that large colonies may not exhaust local resources or that foraging trips are not optimized for minimal distance, and thus that food may not be the limiting resource in this species. This study shows T. rugatulus are behaving in ways that differ from existing models of scaling. Keywords Home range Colony size Social insects Foraging behavior References
Anderson P.K. 1986. Foraging range in mice and voles: the role of risk.
Can. J. Zool.
Blanckenhorn W.U. 2000. The evolution of body size: What keeps organisms small?
Quart. Rev. Biol.
Creighton W.S. 1950. The ants of North America.
Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.
Dornhaus A., Franks N.R., Hawkins R.M. and Shere H.N.S. 2004. Ants move to improve: colonies of
emigrate whenever they find a superior nest site.
Dornhaus A., Holley J.A. and Franks N.R. 2009. Larger colonies do not have more specialized workers in the ant
Foitzik S., Backus V.L., Trindl A. and Herbers J.M. 2004 Ecology of
ants: impact of food, nest sites, and social parasites.
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
Foitzik S., Strätz M. and Heinze J. 2003. Ecology, life history and resource allocation in the ant,
J. Evol. Biol.
Gathmann A. and Tscharntke T. 2002. Foraging ranges of solitary bees.
J. Anim. Ecol.
Gillooly J.F., Brown J.H., West G.B., Savage V.M. and Charnov E.L. 2001. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate.
Giraldeau L. and Caraco T. 2000. Social Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Grear J.S. and Schmitz O.J. 2005. Effects of grouping behavior and predators on the spatial distribution of a forest floor arthropod.
Greenleaf S.S., Williams N.M., Winfree R. and Kremen C. 2007. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size.
Harestad A.S. and Bunnel F.L. 1979. Home range and body weight- a reevaulation.
Herbers J.M. 1986. Effects of ecological parameters on queen number in
Leptothorax longispinosus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc.
Jetz W., Carbone C., Fulford J. and Brown J.H. 2004. The scaling of animal space use.
Jun J., Pepper J.W., Savage V.M., Gillooly J.F. and Brown J.H. 2003. Allometric scaling of ant foraging trail networks.
Evol. Ecol. Res.
Newton I. 1994. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: A review.
Rüppell O., Heinze J. and Hölldobler B. 2001. Alternative reproductive tactics in the queen-size-dimorphic ant
(Emery) and their consequences for genetic population structure.
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
Shik J. 2010. The metabolic costs of building ant colonies from variably sized subunits.
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
Stephens D.W. and Krebs J.R. 1986.
Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Stroeymeyt N., Giurfa M. and Franks N.R. 2010. Improving decision speed, accuracy and group cohesion through early information gathering in house-hunting ants.
Swihart R.K., Slade N.A. and Bergstrom B.J. 1988. Relating body size to the rate of home range use in mammals.
Thompson P.M., Mackay A., Tollit D.J., Enderby S. and Hammond P.S. 1998. The influence of body size and sex on the characteristics of harbor seal foraging trips.
Can. J. Zool
Waters J.S., Holbrook C.T., Fewell J.H. and Harrison J.F. 2010. Allometric scaling of metabolism, growth, and activity in whole colonies of the seed‐harvester ant
Wikelski M. and Romero L.M. 2003. Body size, performance and fitness in Galapagos marine iguanas.
Int. Comp. Biol.
Wilson D.S. and Sober E. 1989. Reviving the superorganism.
J. Theor. Biol.
Google Scholar Copyright information
© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2012