Individual and colony level choice during relocation to unequal target nests in an Indian queenless ant Diacamma indicum

Research Article

Abstract

Most organisms need to make temporal and spatial choices pertaining to a wide range of activities like mating, feeding and resting. Arriving at a consensus on facing a choice could be even more challenging in social insects as inputs from multiple individuals need to be consolidated. Colony relocation is one such event that showcases the interplay between individual inputs and colony level choices. Diacamma indicum is a ponerine ant that uses tandem running for colony relocation. A small subset of the colony become transporters by either transporting brood or males in their mandibles or by becoming tandem leaders and leading all adult females via tandem running to the new nest. Previous studies show the importance of these individuals in the relocation process and document the presence of leader following leader events, which may be a means for information exchange among leaders. The present set of experiments evaluate colony relocation dynamics in the context of two unequal, but equidistant target nests by following 1135 uniquely marked ants. When faced with a light and dark nest, indecision was minimal and all ten colonies relocated to the dark nest. Knowledge of both targets was not crucial for choice of the better option as less than 10% of transporters had visited both targets before initiating transports. A transporter’s latency to start transportation was not influenced by the number of individuals present at the target nest or by the mode of discovery; independent exploration or through leader following leader event. Further the contribution of dependent transporters was found to be significantly lower than independent transporters. Examining decision making by individual transporter and how they influence colony level choice across this simple scenario will enable in understanding the versatility of tandem running recruitment.

Keywords

Tandem running Decision making Nest choice Transport-latency Colony cohesion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Basudev Ghosh for assistance in collection and maintenance of the D. indicum colonies.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethics

All our experiments complied with the regulations for animal care in India.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing or financial interests.

Supplementary material

40_2017_596_MOESM1_ESM.docx (411 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 410 KB)

References

  1. Adlerz G (1896) Tomognathus sublaevis Mayr. Bih Till Kongliga Sven Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handl 21:1–76Google Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1984) The evolution of eusociality. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:165–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anoop K, Sumana A (2015) Response to a change in the target nest during ant relocation. J Exp Biol 218:887–892.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.115246 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, 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 6:751–759.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01201674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Goss S, Pasteels JM (1990) Collective decision making through food recruitment. Insectes Soc 37:258–267.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02224053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatkar A, Whitcomb WH (1970) Artificial diet for rearing various species of ants. Fla Entomol 53:229.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3493193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronin AL (2012) Consensus decision making in the ant Myrmecina nipponica: house-hunters combine pheromone trails with quorum responses. Anim Behav 84:1243–1251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronin AL (2013) Conditional use of social and private information guides house-hunting ants. PLoS One 8:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064668 Google Scholar
  9. Cuvillier-Hot V, Gadagkar R, Peeters C, Cobb M (2002) Regulation of reproduction in a queenless ant: aggression, pheromones and reduction in conflict. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 269:1295–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franks D NR (2006) Colony size affects collective decision-making in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Insectes Soc 53:420–427.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-006-0887-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franklin EL (2014) The journey of tandem running: the twists, turns and what we have learned. Insectes Soc 61:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-013-0325-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franks NR, Hooper JW, Gumn M et al (2007) Moving targets: collective decisions and flexible choices in house-hunting ants. Swarm Intell 1:81–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-007-0007-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franks NR, Mallon EB, Bray HE et al (2003) Strategies for choosing between alternatives with different attributes: exemplified by house-hunting ants. Anim Behav 65:215–223.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.2032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (2009) The superorganism: the beauty, elegance, and strangeness of insect societies. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson DE, Châline N (2007) Modulation of pheromone trail strength with food quality in Pharaoh’s ant, Monomorium pharaonis. Anim Behav 74:463–470.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.11.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaur R, Anoop K, Sumana A (2012) Leaders follow leaders to reunite the colony: relocation dynamics of an Indian queenless ant in its natural habitat. Anim Behav 83:1345–1353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaur R, Joseph J, Anoop K, Sumana A (2017) Characterization of recruitment through tandem running in an Indian queenless ant Diacamma indicum. R Soc Open Sci 4:160476.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160476 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolay S, Annagiri S (2015a) Tight knit under stress: colony resilience to the loss of tandem leaders during relocation in an Indian ant. R Soc Open Sci 2:150104.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150104 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolay S, Annagiri S (2015b) Dual response to nest flooding during monsoon in an Indian ant. Nat Publ Gr 5:13716.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13716 Google Scholar
  21. McGlynn TP (2012) The ecology of nest movement in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 57:291–308.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120710-100708 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitrus S (2016) Emigration speed and the production of sexuals in colonies of the ant Temnothorax crassispinus under high and low levels of disturbance. Insectes Soc 63:127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-015-0447-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Möglich M (1978) Social organization of nest emigration in Leptothorax (Hym., Form.). Insectes Soc 25:205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Möglich M, Maschwitz U, Hölldobler B (1974) Tandem calling: a new kind of signal in ant communication. Science 186:1046–1047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicolis SC, Deneubourg JL (1999) Emerging patterns and food recruitment in ants: an analytical study. J Theor Biol 198:575–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pratt SC (2005a) Behavioral mechanisms of collective nest-site choice by the ant Temnothorax curvispinosus. Insectes Soc 52:383–392.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-005-0823-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pratt SC (2005b) Quorum sensing by encounter rates in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol 16:488–496.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pratt SC, Mallon E, Sumpter D, Franks NR (2002) Quorum sensing, recruitment, and collective decision-making during colony emigration by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-002-0487-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robinson EJH, Feinerman O, Franks NR (2014) How collective comparisons emerge without individual comparisons of the options. Proc Biol Sci 281:20140737.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0737 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Seeley TD (2010) Honeybee democracy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Stroeymeyt N, Franks NR, Giurfa M (2011) Knowledgeable individuals lead collective decisions in ants. J Exp Biol 214:3046–3054.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.059188 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sumana A, Sona C (2012) Studies on colony relocation in the Indian queenless ant Diacamma indicum. Curr Sci 102:1373–1374Google Scholar
  33. Sumana A, Sona C (2013) Key relocation leaders in an Indian queenless ant. Behav Process 97:84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sumpter DJT, Beekman M (2003) From nonlinearity to optimality: pheromone trail foraging by ants. Anim Behav 66:273–280.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Viginier B, Peeters C, Brazier L, Doums C (2004) Very low genetic variability in the Indian queenless ant Diacamma indicum. Mol Ecol 13:2095–2100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02201.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Visscher PK (2007) Group decision making in nest-site selection among social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 52:255–275.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wheeler WM, Chapman JW (1922) The mating of Diacamma. Psyche A J Entomol 203–211Google Scholar
  38. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behaviour and Ecology Lab, Department of Biological SciencesIndian Institute of Science Education and Research, KolkataMohanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations