Advertisement

Evidence for contrasting size-frequency distributions of workers patrolling vegetation vs. the ground in the polymorphic African ant Anoplolepis custodiens

  • G. N. Doering
  • A. Kamath
  • C. M. Wright
  • J. N. Pruitt
Short Communication

Abstract

It is often hypothesized that ant species with substantial variation in worker body size should have schemes for allocating workers to different foraging tasks based on size. Here, we document in Anoplolepis custodiens ants preliminary evidence for a relationship between worker body size and the foraging surfaces on which workers walk. Workers of A. custodiens were collected in pitfall traps near their nest entrances and compared in size to workers exploring the branches of associated shrubs (Salsola sp.). Although ants of all sizes moved freely on the ground, the bushes were almost entirely populated by the smallest workers. These results suggest an effect of substrate on the foraging behavior of an understudied species and suggest that A. custodiens might be a good model to explore size-based behavioral differences in polymorphic ants.

Keywords

Polymorphism Division of labor Foraging Alloethism Size-matching Anoplolepis Polyethism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by NSF IOS Grant 1455895 to JNP. We thank Charles Haddad at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa, for kindly confirming the species identification of Anoplolepis custodiens and Samantha Venter and Peter Carrick for help with identifying Salsola sp. We also thank Corrie Moreau and Shauna Price at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Illinois and Andrew Suarez at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign for their helpful comments on the experiment. All works were carried out in accordance with the applicable local provincial, federal South African, and international regulations.

References

  1. Addison A (2017) Chemical stem barriers for the control of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in vineyards. S Afr J Enol Vitic 23:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.21548/23-1-2148 Google Scholar
  2. Addison P, Samways MJ (2000) A survey of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) that forage in vineyards in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. Afr Entomol 8:251–260Google Scholar
  3. Addison P, Samways MJ (2006) Surrogate habitats demonstrate the invasion potential of the African pugnacious ant. Biodivers Conserv 15:411–428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-5399-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altshuler E, Ramos O, Núñez Y et al (2005) Symmetry breaking in escaping ants. Am Nat 166:643–649.  https://doi.org/10.1086/498139 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernadou A, Felden A, Moreau M et al (2016) Ergonomics of load transport in the seed harvesting ant Messor barbarus: morphology influences transportation method and efficiency. J Exp Biol 219:2920–2927.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.141556 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Calabi P, Traniello JFA (1989) Social organization in the ant Pheidole dentata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:69–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cerdá X, Retana J (1997) Links between worker polymorphism and thermal biology in a thermophilic ant species. Oikos 78:467–474.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3545608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cerdá X, Retana J, Cros S (1998) Critical thermal limits in mediterranean ant species: trade-off between mortality risk and foraging performance. Funct Ecol 12:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clémencet J, Cournault L, Odent A, Doums C (2010) Worker thermal tolerance in the thermophilic ant Cataglyphis cursor (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insect Soc 57:11–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-009-0044-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Bie PH, Hewitt G (1990) Thermal responses of the semi-arid zone ants Ocymyrmex weitzeckeri (Emery) and Anoplolepis custodiens (Smith). J Entomol Soc South Afr 53:65–73Google Scholar
  11. Dornhaus A (2008) specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant. PLoS Biol 6:e285.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060285 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Espadaler X, Gómez C (2001) Formicine ants comply with the size-grain hypothesis. Funct Ecol 15:136–138.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.2001.00490.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farji-Brener AG, Barrantes G, Ruggiero A (2004) Environmental rugosity, body size and access to food: a test of the size-grain hypothesis in tropical litter ants. Oikos 104:165–171.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12740.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franks NR, Sendova-Franks AB, Anderson C (2001) Division of labour within teams of new world and old world army ants. Anim Behav 62:635–642.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hasegawa E (1993) Nest defense and early production of the major workers in the dimorphic ant Colobopsis nipponicus (Wheeler) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:73–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00171658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herbers JM (1979) Caste-biased polyethism in a mound-building ant species. Am Midl Nat 101:69–75.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2424902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The Ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hooper LM, Rust MK (1997) Food preference and patterns of foraging activity of the southern fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 90:246–253.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/90.2.246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaspari M, Weiser MD (1999) The size-grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants. Funct Ecol 13:530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keiser CN, Wright CM, Pruitt JN (2015) Warring arthropod societies: Social spider colonies can delay annihilation by predatory ants via reduced apparency and increased group size. Behav Process 119:14–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuebler LS, Kelber C, Kleineidam CJ (2009) Distinct antennal lobe phenotypes in the leaf-cutting ant (Atta vollenweideri). J Comp Neurol 518:352–365.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.22217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Löhr B (1992) The pugnacious ant, Anoplolepis custodiens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), and its beneficial effect on coconut production in Tanzania. Bull Entomol Res 82:213–218.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300051750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Louw J (1966) Die aktiwiteit van Anoplolepis custodiens (Smith) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) oor’n periode van een jaar. Thesis, University of the Free StateGoogle Scholar
  24. Marsh AC (1985) Aspects of the ecology of Namib Desert ants. Thesis, University of Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  25. McIver JD, Loomis C (1993) A size-distance relation in Homoptera-tending thatch ants Formica obscuripes, Formica planipilis. Insects Soc 40:207–218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01240708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nonacs P (2002) Patterns of energy allocation within foragers of Formica planipilis and Pogonomyrmex salinus. West N Am Nat 62:188–196.Google Scholar
  27. Nyamukondiwa C, Addison P (2014) Food preference and foraging activity of ants: recommendations for field applications of low-toxicity baits. J Insect Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1673/031.014.48 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Powell S (2008) Ecological specialization and the evolution of a specialized caste in Cephalotes ants. Funct Ecol 22:902–911.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01436.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Powell S, Franks NR (2006) Ecology and the evolution of worker morphological diversity: a comparative analysis with Eciton army ants. Funct Ecol 20:1105–1114.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01184.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prins AJ (1982) Review of Anoplolepis with reference to male genitalia, and notes on Acropyga (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann S Afr Mus 89:215–247Google Scholar
  31. Rissing SW, Polloek GB (1984) Worker size variability and foraging efficiency in Veromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:121–126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samways MJ, Nel M, Prins AJ (1982) Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) foraging in citrus trees and attending honeydew-producing Homoptera. Phytophylactica 14:155–157Google Scholar
  33. Smith F (1858) Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British museum. Part VI. Formicidae. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Way MJ (1953) The relationship between certain ant species with particular reference to biological control of the Coreid, Theraptus sp. Bull Entomol Res 44:669–691.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300024652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wetterer JK (1994) Forager polymorphism, size-matching, and load delivery in the leaf-cutting ant, Atta cephalotes. Ecol Entomol 19:57–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1994.tb00390.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wills BD, Powell S, Rivera MD, Suarez AV (2018) Correlates and consequences of worker polymorphism in ants. Ann Rev Entomol 63:575–598.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson EO (1978) Division of labor in fire ants based on physical castes (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Solenopsis). J Kans Entomol Soc 51:615–636Google Scholar
  38. Wilson EO (1980) Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:143–156.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright CM, Keiser CN, Pruitt JN (2016) Colony personality composition alters colony-level plasticity and magnitude of defensive behaviour in a social spider. Anim Behav 115:175–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright CM, Lichtenstein JLL, Montgomery GA et al (2017) Exposure to predators reduces collective foraging aggressiveness and eliminates its relationship with colony personality composition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2356-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Wright PJ, Bonser R, Chukwu UO (2000) The size–distance relationship in the wood ant Formica rufa. Ecol Entomol 25:226–233.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2000.00253.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yanoviak SP, Dudley R, Kaspari M (2005) Directed aerial descent in canopy ants. Nature 433:624–626.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03254 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Yanoviak SP, Munk Y, Kaspari M, Dudley R (2010) Aerial manoeuvrability in wingless gliding ants (Cephalotes atratus). Proc Biol Sci 277:2199–2204.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0170 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. N. Doering
    • 1
  • A. Kamath
    • 1
  • C. M. Wright
    • 1
  • J. N. Pruitt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine BiologyUniversity of California-Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Marine Science InstituteUniversity of California-Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations