Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 535–547 | Cite as

A comparative approach to cooperative transport in ants: individual persistence correlates with group coordination

Research Article

Abstract

When groups of ants work together to carry large objects—called cooperative transport—they must form consensus on a travel direction. In many species, groups are unsuccessful at this decision, and deadlock. In other collective decisions, including nest-site selection in honeybees, individuals’ enthusiasm or recruitment intensity for a given option affects the selection process. A similar mechanism may be important during cooperative transport in ants and may account for coordination differences among species. Results from theoretical models suggest that individuals’ persistence—their reluctance to give up or change their preferred direction—may promote coordination. More persistent individuals formed more successful groups in a theoretical context. As an empirical test of this hypothesis, I examined cooperative transport in four ant species that differ substantially in their group-level coordination, from exceedingly coordinated to rarely successful. I focused on the beginning of transport, evaluating groups’ transitions from uncoordinated to successful. I measured two types of persistence at the individual level—total engagement effort and local engagement time—and I measured group coordination for each species. In one species, I also manipulated persistence by adding a force equivalent to infinitely persistent ants to the existing transport groups. Species with more persistent individuals succeeded more often and formed more coordinated transport groups, with more direct paths. Furthermore, adding two infinitely persistent ants to the existing groups seemed to moderately increase their path directness. These results support the hypothesis that high individual persistence promotes group coordination during cooperative transport, and this study informs the mechanisms of emergent coordination.

Keywords

Cooperative transport Persistence Collective decision Formicidae Emergent behavior Collective behavior 

Supplementary material

Online Resource 1 Movie showing examples of cooperative transport attempts for each species (MP4 175,735 kb)

Online Resource 2 Movie showing example of trial to measure persistence (MP4 48,078 kb)

Online Resource 3 Movie showing example of trial to measure the force that F. podzolica workers typically pull with (MP4 43,697 kb)

Online Resource 4 Movie showing example of a persistence manipulation trial in F. podzolica (MP4 52,149 kb)

40_2017_575_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (55 kb)
Online Resource 5 Table showing P values for post hoc comparisons among species (PDF 55 kb)

References

  1. Berman S, Lindsey Q, Sakar MS et al (2011) Experimental study and modeling of group retrieval in ants as an approach to collective transport in swarm robotic systems. Proc IEEE 99:1470–1481. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2111450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buffin A, Pratt SC (2016) Cooperative transport by the ant Novomessor cockerelli. Insectes Soc. doi:10.1007/s00040-016-0486-y Google Scholar
  3. Camazine S, Deneubourg J-L, Franks NR et al (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng K, Schultheiss P, Schwarz S et al (2014) Beginnings of a synthetic approach to desert ant navigation. Behav Process 102:51–61. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Czaczkes TJ, Ratnieks FLW (2013) Cooperative transport in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and elsewhere. Myrmecol News 18:1–11Google Scholar
  6. Czaczkes TJ, Nouvellet P, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Cooperative food transport in the Neotropical ant, Pheidole oxyops. Insectes Soc 58:153–161. doi:10.1007/s00040-010-0130-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fewell JH (2015) Social Biomimicry: what do ants and bees tell us about organization in the natural world? J Bioecon 17:207–216. doi:10.1007/s10818-015-9207-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fonio E, Heyman Y, Boczkowski L et al (2016) A locally-blazed ant trail achieves efficient collective navigation despite limited information. eLife 5:e20185. doi:10.7554/eLife.20185 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Francoeur A (1973) Révision taxonomique des espèces néarctiques du groupe fusca, genre Formica (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). Mem Soc Ent Québec 3:316Google Scholar
  10. Gelblum A, Pinkoviezky I, Fonio E et al (2015) Ant groups optimally amplify the effect of transiently informed individuals. Nat Commun 6:7729. doi:10.1038/ncomms8729 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregg RE (1963) The ants of Colorado. University of Colorado Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  12. Mallon EB, Pratt SC, Franks NR (2001) Individual and collective decision-making during nest site selection by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:352–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCreery HF, Breed MD (2014) Cooperative transport in ants: a review of proximate mechanisms. Insectes Soc 61:99–110. doi:10.1007/s00040-013-0333-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCreery HF, Correll N, Breed MD, Flaxman S (2016a) Consensus or deadlock? Consequences of simple behavioral rules for coordination in group decisions. PLoS One 11:e0162768. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162768 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. McCreery HF, Dix ZA, Breed MD, Nagpal R (2016b) Collective strategy for obstacle navigation during cooperative transport by ants. J Exp Biol 219:3366–3375. doi:10.1242/jeb.143818 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Moffett M (1992) Ant Foraging. Res Explor 8:220–231Google Scholar
  17. Moffett MW (2010) Adventures among ants: a global safari with a cast of trillions, 1st edn. University of California Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. Niven JE (2012) How honeybees break a decision-making deadlock. Science 335:43–44. doi:10.1126/science.1216563 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pais D, Hogan PM, Schlegel T et al (2013) A mechanism for value-sensitive decision-making. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073216 Google Scholar
  20. Pratt SC, Sumpter DJT (2006) A tunable algorithm for collective decision-making. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:15906–15910. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604801103 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Pratt SC, Mallon EB, Sumpter DJT, Franks NR (2002) Quorum sensing, recruitment, and collective decision-making during colony emigration by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:117–127. doi:10.1007/s00265-002-0487-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robinson EJH, Smith FD, Sullivan KME, Franks NR (2009) Do ants make direct comparisons? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:2635–2641. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seeley TD (2010) Honeybee democracy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Seeley TD, Visscher PK, Schlegel T et al (2012) Stop signals provide cross inhibition in collective decision-making by honeybee swarms. Science 335:108–111. doi:10.1126/science.1210361 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Trager JC, MacGown JA, Trager MD (2007) Revision of the Nearctic endemic Formica pallidefulva group. Mem Am Entomol Inst 80:610–636Google Scholar
  26. Visscher PK (2007) Group decision making in nest-site selection among social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 52:255–275. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wetterer JK (2008) Worldwide spread of the longhorn crazy ant, Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 11:137–149Google Scholar
  28. Yamamoto A, Ishihara S, Ito F (2008) Fragmentation or transportation: mode of large-prey retrieval in arboreal and ground nesting ants. J Insect Behav 22:1–11. doi:10.1007/s10905-008-9126-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations