Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 100, Issue 12, pp 1109–1114

To drink or grasp? How bullet ants (Paraponera clavata) differentiate between sugars and proteins in liquids

  • Jennifer Jandt
  • Hannah K. Larson
  • Peter Tellez
  • Terrence P. McGlynn
Original Paper

Abstract

Flexibility in behavior can increase the likelihood that a forager may respond optimally in a fluctuating environment. Nevertheless, physiological or neuronal constraints may result in suboptimal responses to stimuli. We observed foraging workers of the giant tropical ant (also referred to as the “bullet ant”), Paraponera clavata, as they reacted to liquid solutions with varying concentrations of sugar and protein. We show that when protein/sucrose concentration is high, many bullet ants will often try to grasp at the droplet, rather than gather it by drinking. Because P. clavata actively hunt for prey, fixed action patterns and rapid responses to protein may be adaptively important, regardless of the medium in which it is presented. We conclude that, in P. clavata, food-handling decisions are made in response to the nutrient content of the food rather than the texture of the food. Further, we suggest that colonies that maintain a mixture of individuals with consistent fixed or flexible behavioral responses to food-handling decisions may be better adapted to fluctuating environmental conditions, and we propose future studies that could address this.

Keywords

Bullet ants Central place foraging Protein concentration Sugar concentration 

Supplementary material

ESM 1

(WMV 16373 kb)

References

  1. Breed MD, Bennett B (1985) Mass recruitment to nectar sources in Paraponera clavata: a field study. Insect Soc 32(2):198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breed MD, Fewell JH, Moore AJ, Williams KR (1987) Graded recruitment in a ponerine ant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20(6):407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breed MD, Stiller TM, Fewell JH, Harrison JM (1991) Intercolonial interactions and nestmate discrimination in the giant tropical ant, Paraponera clavata. Biotropica 23(3):301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns JG, Dyer AG (2008) Diversity of speed-accuracy strategies benefits social insects. Curr Biol 18(20):R953–R954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll CR, Janzen DH (1973) Ecology of foraging by ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:231–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook SC, Behmer ST (2010) Macronutrient regulation in the tropical terrestrial ant Ectatomma ruidum (Formicidae): a field study in Costa Rica. Biotropica 42(2):135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook SC, Eubanks MD, Gold RE, Behmer ST (2011) Seasonality directs contrasting food collection behavior and nutrient regulation strategies in ants. PLoS One 6(9)Google Scholar
  8. Dussutour A, Simpson SJ (2009) Communal nutrition in ants. Curr Biol 19(9):740–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyer LA (2002) A quantification of predation rates, indirect positive effects on plants, and foraging variation of the giant tropical ant, Paraponera clavata. J Insect Sci 2(18):1–7Google Scholar
  10. Dyer L, Floyd T (1993) Determinants of predation on phytophagous insects: the importance of diet breadth. Oecologia 96(4):575–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fewell JH, Harrison JF, Lighton JRB, Breed MD (1996) Foraging energetics of the ant, Paraponera clavata. Oecologia 105(4):419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fritz G, Rand AS, dePamphilis CW (1981) The aposematically colored frog, Dendrobates pumilo, is distasteful to the large, predatory ant, Paraponera clavata. Biotropica 13(2):158–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hölldobler B (1985) Liquid food transmission and antennation signals in ponerine ants. Isr J Entomol 19:89–99Google Scholar
  14. Jandt JM, Dornhaus A (2013) Bumble bee response thresholds and body size: the amount of variation among workers may affect colony performance. Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Jandt J, Taylor B, Jeanne R (2010) Temperature and forager body size affect carbohydrate collection in German yellowjackets, Vespula germanica (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Insect Soc 57(3):275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jandt JM, Bengston S, Pinter-Wollman N, Pruitt JN, Raine NE, Dornhaus A, Sih A (2013) Behavioural syndromes and social insects: personality at multiple levels. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. doi:10.1111/brv.12042 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaspari M, Yanoviak SP (2001) Bait use in tropical litter and canopy ants—evidence of differences in nutrient limitation. Biotropica 33(1):207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larson HK (2012) Dietary and Environmental Predictors of Rhizobiales Prevalence in the Bullet Ant, Paraponera clavata. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Pernal SF, Currie RW (2001) The influence of pollen quality on foraging behavior in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51(1):53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pernal SF, Currie RW (2002) Discrimination and preferences for pollen-based cues by foraging honeybees, Apis mellifera L. Anim Behav 63:369–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scheiner R, Page RE, Erber J (2004) Sucrose responsiveness and behavioral plasticity in honey bees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 35(2):133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honey bee colonies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Tillberg CV, Breed MD (2004) Placing an omnivore in a complex food web: dietary contributions to adult biomass of an ant. Biotropica 36(2):266–272Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Jandt
    • 1
  • Hannah K. Larson
    • 2
  • Peter Tellez
    • 2
  • Terrence P. McGlynn
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolutionary and Organismal BiologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyCalifornia State University Dominguez HillsCarsonUSA

Personalised recommendations