Advertisement

The effect of ground surface rugosity on ant running speed is species-specific rather than size dependent

  • M. E. GrevéEmail author
  • S. Bláha
  • J. Teuber
  • M. Rothmaier
  • H. Feldhaar
Research Article

Abstract

Foraging is one of the main reasons for ants to walk. Foraging speed is mainly dependent on morphological traits, but also on the surface structure. The size-grain hypothesis (SGH) suggests that (1) relative leg length should increase allometrically with body size, and (2) smaller, shorter legged species have an advantage with increasing habitat complexity in comparison to larger and longer legged species. In general, it is thought that leg length is a good predictor for running speed. We performed morphological analyses and running experiments with differently sized ant species along an artificial gradient of surface rugosity. We measured running speed, number of steps, body size and leg length to answer the question, if morphological traits can be used to predict the running speed of ants in complex habitats, as predicted by the SGH. We found that (1) leg length increased allometrically with body size, and that (2) the largest species were among the fastest and could sustain their speed with increasing surface rugosity. The smallest species with the relatively shortest legs were the fastest on the flattest surface, but their speed decreased rapidly with increasing rugosity. Leg length was not a good predictor for running speed. Similar-sized species responded idiosyncratically to high surface rugosity, which might be related to species-specific habitat preferences. Species-specific behavior or stride frequency influenced running speed strongly, which hampers precise predictions on their running speed, based on morphological traits exclusively.

Keywords

Size-grain hypotheses Formicidae Locomotion Body size Leg length 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Oliver Otti and Simon Tragust for fruitful discussions on the experimental design. MEG has been funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), “Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung”, support code 01JA160.

Supplementary material

40_2019_694_MOESM1_ESM.docx (646 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 646 KB)

References

  1. Adler FR, LeBrun EG, Feener DH Jr (2007) Maintaining diversity in an ant community: modeling, extending, and testing the dominance-discovery trade-off. Am Nat 169:323–333Google Scholar
  2. Alexander RM (2003) Principles of animal locomation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnan X, Cerdá X, Retana J (2014) Ant functional responses along environmental gradients. J Anim Ecol 83:1398–1408.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnan X, Cerdá X, Rodrigo A, Retana J (2013) Response of ant functional composition to fire. Ecography 36:1182–1192.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00155.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernadou A, Fourcassié V (2008) Does substrate coarseness matter for foraging ants? An experiment with Lasius niger (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). J Insect Physiol 54:534–542.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2007.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bihn JH, Gebauer G, Brandl R (2010) Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forests. Ecology 91:782–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collett M, Collett TS, Srinivasan MV (2006) Insect navigation: measuring travel distance across ground and through air. Curr Biol 16:R887–R890.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CUB.2006.09.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson DW (1998) Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade-off. Ecol Entomol 23:484–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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 104:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feener DHJ, Lighton JRB, Bartholomew G (1988) Curvilinear allometry, energetics and foraging ecology: a comparison of leaf-cutting ants and army ants. Funct Ecol 2:509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fellers JH (1987) Interference and exploitation in a guild of woodland ants. Ecol Soc Am 68:1466–1478Google Scholar
  13. Frizzi F (2018) Complexity of searching movement in the European harvester ant Messor wasmanni: effect of temperature and body size. Insect Soc 65:263–273.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-018-0609-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibb H, Parr CL (2010) How does habitat complexity affect ant foraging success? A test using functional measures on three continents. Oecologia 164:1061–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1703-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibb H, Parr CL (2013) Does structural complexity determine the morphology of assemblages? An experimental test on three continents. PLoS One 8:1–7Google Scholar
  16. Gibb H, Stoklosa J, Warton DI et al (2015) Does morphology predict trophic position and habitat use of ant species and assemblages? Oecologia 177:519–531.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3101-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herbers JM, Choiniere E (1996) Foraging behaviour and colony structure in ants. Anim Behav 51:141–153.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurlbert AH, Ballantyne IVF, Powell S (2008) Shaking a leg and hot to trot: the effects of body size and temperature on running speed in ants. Ecol Entomol 33:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. John Fox and Sanford Weisberg (2011) An R Companion to Applied Regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson RA (1991) Learning, memory, and foraging efficiency in two species of desert seed-harvester ants. Ecology 72:1408–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaspari M, Weiser M (2007) The size-grain hypothesis: do macroarthropods see a fractal world? Ecol Entomol 32:279–282.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2007.00870.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaspari M, Weiser MD (1999) The size-grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants. Funct Ecol 13:530–538.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00343.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lassau SA, Hochuli DF (2004) Effects of habitat complexity on ant assemblages. Ecography 27:157–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03675.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nielsen MG (2001) Energetic cost of foraging in the ant Rhytidoponera aurata in tropical Australia. Physiol Entomol 26:248–253.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0307-6962.2001.00242.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Parr CL, Dunn RR, Sanders NJ et al (2017) GlobalAnts: a new database on the geography of ant traits (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Conserv Divers 10:5–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parr ZJE, Parr CL, Chown SL (2003) The size-grain hypothesis: a phylogenetic and field test. Ecol Entomol 28:475–481.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2003.00529.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pearce-Duvet JMC, Elemans CPH, Feener DH (2011) Walking the line: search behavior and foraging success in ant species. Behav Ecol 22:501–509.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Radnan GN, Gibb H, Eldridge DJ (2018) Soil surface complexity has a larger effect on food exploitation by ants than a change from grassland to shrubland. Ecol Entomol 43:379–388.  https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reinhardt L, Blickhan R (2014) Level locomotion in wood ants: evidence for grounded running. J Exp Biol 217:2358–2370.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.098426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sarty M, Abbott KL, Lester PJ (2006) Habitat complexity facilitates coexistence in a tropical ant community. Oecologia 149:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schofield SF, Bishop TR, Parr CL (2016) Morphological characteristics of ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) differ among contrasting biomes. Myrmecol News 23:129–137Google Scholar
  33. Seifert B (2007) Die Ameisen Mittel-und Nordeuropas. lutra Verlags-und Vertriebsgesellschaft 368Google Scholar
  34. Seifert B (2017) The ecology of Central European non-arboreal ants—37 years of a broad-spectrum analysis under permanent taxonomic control. Soil Org 89:1–67Google Scholar
  35. Silva RR, Brandão CRF (2014) Ecosystem-wide morphological structure of leaf-litter ant communities along a tropical latitudinal gradient. PLoS One 9:e93049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ślipiński P, Żmihorski M (2017) Changes in the speed of ants as a result of aggressive interactions. Insect Sci 24:842–852.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sommer S, Wehner R (2012) Leg allometry in ants: extreme long-leggedness in thermophilic species. Arthropod Struct Dev 41:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steck K, Wittlinger M, Wolf H (2009) Estimation of homing distance in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis, remains unaffected by disturbance of walking behaviour. J Exp Biol 2012:2893–2901.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.030403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Teuscher M, Brändle M, Traxel V, Brandl R (2009) Allometry between leg and body length of insects: lack of support for the size-grain hypothesis. Ecol Entomol 34:718–724.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01124.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Oudenhove L, Boulay R, Lenoir A et al (2012) Substrate temperature constrains recruitment and trail following behavior in ants. J Chem Ecol 38:802–809.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-012-0130-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wahl V, Pfeffer SE, Wittlinger M (2015) Walking and running in the desert ant Cataglyphis fortis. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 201:645–656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-015-0999-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Warton DI, Duursma RA, Falster DS, Taskinen S (2012) smatr 3—an R package for estimation and inference about allometric lines. Methods Ecol Evol 3:257–259.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00153.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006) Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 81:259–291.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793106007007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weihmann T, Blickhan R (2009) Comparing inclined locomotion in a ground-living and a climbing ant species: sagittal plane kinematics. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 195:1011–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-009-0475-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiescher PT, Pearce-Duvet JMC, Feener DH (2012) Assembling an ant community: species functional traits reflect environmental filtering. Oecologia 169:1063–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Willott J, Compton G, Incoll D (2000) Foraging, food selection and worker size in the seed harvesting ant Messor bouvieri. Oecologia 125:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yanoviak S, Kaspari M (2000) Community structure and the habitat templet: ants in the tropical forest canopy and litter. Oikos 89:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yanoviak SP, Silveri C, Hamm CA, Solis M (2012) Stem characteristics and ant body size in a Costa Rican rain forest. J Trop Ecol 28:199–204.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646741100071X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yanoviak SP, Silveri C, Stark AY et al (2017) Surface roughness affects the running speed of tropical canopy ants. Biotropica 49:92–100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yates M, Andrew N, Binns M, Gibb H (2014) Morphological traits: predictable responses to macrohabitats across a 300 km scale. PeerJ 2:e271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zollikofer CPE (1994a) Stepping patterns in ants—Part I—influence of speed and curvature. J Exp Biol 192:119–127Google Scholar
  52. Zollikofer CPE (1994b) Stepping patterns in ants—Part II—influence of body morphology. J Exp Biol 192:107–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Population Ecology, Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER)University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations