Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 549–555 | Cite as

Traffic rules around the corner: walking of leaf-cutting ants at branching points in trunk trails

  • L. Cibils-Martina
  • L. Elizalde
  • A. G. Farji-Brener
Research Article

Abstract

The existence of transport networks is vital for leaf-cutting ant foraging but may generate overcrowding, reducing the input of food into the nest. We studied how ants turn at branching points, a problematic sector for ant traffic, in leaf-cutting ant species that vary in ant flow and trail design. If the walking of turning ants reduces the chance of collisions, we expected that (a) ants that keep the same lane while turning suffer less collisions than those who change lane, (b) the behavior of keeping the same lane will be higher than expected by chance, and (c) lane fidelity of turning ants should increase as ant flow increases. We recorded the turning movements of 1355 individuals in trail bifurcations from 25 ant nests. Each ant was categorized according to the fidelity to its traffic lane while turning, the number of collisions, and the ant flow at the moment of turning. Ants faithful to their lane had fewer collisions than ants unfaithful to their lane when turning, but only in the two Atta species. Lane fidelity when turning was the most frequent behavior in all species, but this behavior did not increase with increments in ant flow. Leaf-cutting ants appear to follow simple rules to reduce overcrowding: keep walking on the same lane when turning. We discussed the influence of ant flow and trail design on this behavior and the dual role of collisions (information exchange and traffic delay) in trail sectors conflicting for traffic circulation.

Graphical Abstract

Bifurcations may be a conflictive sector for smooth traffic in leaf-cutting ants. We showed that ants appear to follow simple rules to reduce overcrowding at theses trail sectors: keep walking on the same traffic lane when turning.

Keywords

Acromyrmex Ant behavior Atta Foraging trails Locomotion Transport networks 

Supplementary material

40_2017_576_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31 kb)

References

  1. Bochynek T, Meyer B, Burd M (2017) Energetics of trail clearing in the leaf-cutter ant Atta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bollazzi M, Roces F (2011) Information needs at the beginning of foraging: grass-cutting ants trade off load size for a faster return to the nest. PLoS One 6:e17667CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouchebti S, Ferrere S, Vittori K, Latil G, Dussutour A, Fourcassié V (2015) Contact rate modulates foraging efficiency in leaf-cutting ants. Sci Rep 5:18650. doi:10.1038/srep18650 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruce AI, Burd M (2012) Allometric scaling of foraging rate with trail dimensions in leaf-cutting ants. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 279:2442–2447. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burd M (2006) Ecological consequences of traffic organisation in ant societies. Phys A 372(1):124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burd M, Aranwela N (2003) Head-on encounter rates and walking speed of foragers in leaf-cutting ant traffic. Insectes Soc 50:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burd M, Archer D, Aranwela N, Stradling DJ (2002) Traffic dynamics of the leaf-cutting ant, Atta cephalotes. Am Nat 159:283–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dussutour A, Fourcassie V, Helbing D, Deneubourg JL (2004) Optimal traffic organization in ants under crowded conditions. Nature 428:70–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dussutour A, Beshers S, Deneubourg JL, Fourcassie V (2007) Crowding increases foraging efficiency in the leaf-cutting ant Atta colombica. Insectes Soc 54:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dussutour A, Deneubourg J-L, Beshers S, Fourcassie V (2009) Individual and collective problem-solving in a foraging context in the leaf-cutting ant Atta colombica. Anim Cogn 12:21–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Elizalde L, Farji-Brener AG (2012) To be or not to be faithful: flexible fidelity to foraging trails in the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex lobicornis. Ecol Entomol 37:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farji-Brener AG (2001) Why are leaf-cutting ants more common in early secondary forests than in old-growth tropical forests? An evaluation of the palatable forage hypothesis. Oikos 92:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farji-Brener AG, Ruggiero A (1994) Leaf-cutting ants (Atta and Acromyrmex) inhabiting Argentina: patterns in species richness and geographical range sizes. J Biogeogr 21:391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farji-Brener AG, Tadey M (2017) Consequences of leaf-cutting ants on plant fitness: integrating negative effects of herbivory and positive effects from soil improvement. Insectes Soc 64:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farji-Brener AG, Amador-Vargas S, Chinchilla F, Escobar S, Cabrera S, Herrera MI, Sandoval C (2010) Information transfer in head-on encounters between leaf-cutting ant workers: food, trail condition or orientation cues? Anim Behav 79:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farji-Brener AG, Morueta-Holme N, Chinchilla F, Willink B, Ocampo N, Bruner G (2012) Leaf-cutting ants as road engineers: the width of trails at branching points in Atta cephalotes. Insectes Soc 59:389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farji-Brener AG, Chinchilla F, Umaña MN, Ocasio-Torres ME, Chauta-Mellizo A, Acosta-Rojas D, Amador-Vargas S (2015) Branching angles reflect a trade-off between reducing trail maintenance costs or travel distances in leaf-cutting ants. Ecology 96:510–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fourcassié V, Dussutour A, Deneubourg JL (2010) Ant traffic rules. J Exp Biol 213:2357–2363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Herz H, Beyschlag W, Hölldobler B (2007) Herbivory rate of leaf-cutting ants in a tropical moist forest in panama at the population and ecosystem scales. Biotropica 39:482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (2011) The leafcutter ants: civilization by instinct. W. W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard JJ (2001) Costs of trail construction and maintenance in the leaf-cutting ant Atta colombica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:348–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kost C, De Oliveira EG, Knoch TA, Wirth R (2005) Spatio-temporal permanence and plasticity of foraging trails in young and mature leaf-cutting ant colonies (Atta spp.). J Trop Ecol 21:677–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lugo AE, Farnworth EG, Pool D, Jerez P, Kaufman G (1973) The impact of the leaf cutter ant Atta colombica on the energy flow of a tropical west forest. Ecology 54:1292–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lutz FE (1929) Observations on leaf-cutting ants. Am Mus Novit 388:1–21. doi:10.1206/0003-0082 Google Scholar
  25. Moussaïd M, Helbing D, Theraulaz G (2011) How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:6884–6888CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. R Development Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  27. Rockwood LL, Hubbell SP (1987) Host-plant selection, diet diversity, and optimal foraging in a tropical leafcutting ant. Oecologia 74:55–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Shepherd JD (1982) Trunk trails and the searching strategy of a leaf-cutter ant, Atta colombica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang Y, Nihan NL (2004) Estimating the risk of collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles at signalized intersections. Accid Anal Prev 36:313–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wirth R, Herz H, Ryel R, Beyschlag W, Hölldobler B (2003) Herbivory of leaf-cutting ants. A case study on Atta Colombica in the tropical rainforest of Panama. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Cibils-Martina
    • 1
  • L. Elizalde
    • 2
  • A. G. Farji-Brener
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y NaturalesUniversidad Nacional de Río CuartoRío CuartoArgentina
  2. 2.Laboratorio EcotonoINIBIOMA-CONICET and CRUB-Universidad Nacional del ComahueBarilocheArgentina

Personalised recommendations