Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 151–161 | Cite as

Paying for information: partial loads in central place foragers

  • A. DornhausEmail author
  • E. J. Collins
  • F.-X. Dechaume-Moncharmont
  • A. I. Houston
  • N. R. Franks
  • J. M. McNamara
Original Article


Information about food sources can be crucial to the success of a foraging animal. We predict that this will influence foraging decisions by group-living foragers, which may sacrifice short-term foraging efficiency to collect information more frequently. This result emerges from a model of a central-place forager that can potentially receive information on newly available superior food sources at the central place. Such foragers are expected to return early from food sources, even with just partial loads, if information about the presence of sufficiently valuable food sources is likely to become available. Returning with an incomplete load implies that the forager is at that point not achieving the maximum possible food delivery rate. However, such partial loading can be more than compensated for by an earlier exploitation of a superior food source. Our model does not assume cooperative foraging and could thus be used to investigate this effect for any social central-place forager. We illustrate the approach using numerical calculations for honeybees and leafcutter ants, which do forage cooperatively. For these examples, however, our results indicate that reducing load confers minimal benefits in terms of receiving information. Moreover, the hypothesis that foragers reduce load to give information more quickly (rather than to receive it) fits empirical data from social insects better. Thus, we can conclude that in these two cases of social-insect foraging, efficient distribution of information by successful foragers may be more important than efficient collection of information by unsuccessful ones.


Central place foraging Information center Recruitment Partial loads Honeybees Apis mellifera 



We thank the BBSRC (grant no. EF19832) and the DFG (Emmy Nöther fellowship to A. D.) for funding.


  1. Balderrama NM, de Almeida B LO, Núñez JA (1992) Metabolic rate during foraging in the honeybee. J Comp Physiol B 162:440–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown CR, Bomberger Brown M, Shaffer ML (1991) Food sharing signals among socially foraging cliff swallows. Anim Behav 42:551–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burd M (1996a) Foraging performance by Atta colombica, a leaf-cutting ant. Am Nat 148:597–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burd M (1996b) Server system and queuing models of leaf harvesting by leaf-cutting ants. Am Nat 148:613–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burd M, Howard JJ (2005) Global optimization from suboptimal parts: foraging sensu lato by leaf-cutting ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark CW, Kacelnik A (1994) Leaf-cutting ants may be optimal foragers and Reply from A. Kacelnik. TREE 9:63Google Scholar
  8. Collins EJ, Houston AI, McNamara JM (2006) The value of information in central-place foraging. Statistics Group Research Reports: Report 06.04 URL: (accessed June 19th 2006)
  9. Cuthill I, Kacelnik A (1990) Central place foraging: a reappraisal of the ‘loading effect’. Anim Behav 40:1087–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dall SRX, Giraldeau L-A, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. TREE 20:187–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dechaume-Moncharmont F-X, Dornhaus A, Houston AI, McNamara JM, Collins EJ, Franks NR (2005) The hidden cost of information in collective foraging. Proc Biol Sci B 272:1689–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frisch Kv (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1985) A general theory of central place foraging for single-prey loaders. Theor Popul Biol 28:233–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houston AI, Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A (1988) Foraging strategy, worker mortality and the growth of the colony in social insects. Am Nat 131:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howard JJ (2001) Costs of trail construction and maintenance in the leaf-cutting ant Atta columbica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:348–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kacelnik A (1993) Leaf-cutting ants tease optimal foraging theorists. TREE 8:346–348Google Scholar
  17. Kacelnik A, Houston AI, Schmid-Hempel P (1986) Central-place foraging in honeybees: the effect of travel time and nectar flow on crop filling. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moffatt L (2000) Changes in the metabolic rate of the foraging honeybee: effect of the carried weight or of the reward rate? J Comp Physiol A 186:299–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moffatt L, Núñez JA (1997) Oxygen consumption in the foraging honeybee depends on the reward rate at the food source. J Comp Physiol A 167:36–42Google Scholar
  20. Núñez JA (1966) Quantitative Beziehungen zwischen den Eigenschaften von Futterquellen und dem Verhalten von Sammelbienen. Z Vergl Physiol 53:142–164Google Scholar
  21. Núñez JA (1970) The relationship between sugar flow and foraging and recruiting behaviour of honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Anim Behav 18:527–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Núñez JA (1971) Beobachtungen an sozialbezogenen Verhaltensweisen von Sammelbienen. Z Tierpsychol 28:1–18Google Scholar
  23. Núñez JA (1982) Honeybee foraging strategies at a food source in relation to its distance from the hive and the rate of sugar flow. J Apic Res 21:139–150Google Scholar
  24. Orians GH, Pearson NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. In: Horn DJ, Mitchell RD, Stairs GR (eds) Analyses of ecological systems. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio, pp 154–177Google Scholar
  25. Roces F (1994) Cooperation or individualism: how leaf-cutting ants decide on the size of their loads. TREE 9:230Google Scholar
  26. Roces F (2002) Individual complexity and self-organization in foraging by leaf-cutting ants. Biol Bull 202:306–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Roces F, Núñez JA (1993) Information about food quality influences load-size selection in recruited leaf-cutting ants. Anim Behav 45:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A, Houston AL (1985) Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crop. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seeley T (1995) The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honeybee colonies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge/MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  30. Seeley TD (1985) Honeybee ecology: a study of adaptation in social life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Seeley TD, Visscher PK (1988) Assessing the benefits of cooperation in honeybee foraging: search costs, forage quality, and competitive ability. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stephens DW (1987) On economically tracking a variable environment. Theor Popul Biol 32:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stephens DW (1989) Variance and the value of information. Am Nat 134:128–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Varju D, Núñez J (1993) Energy balance versus information exchange in foraging honeybees. J Comp Physiol 172:257–261Google Scholar
  36. Wetterer JK (1989) Central place foraging theory—when load size affects travel time. Theor Popul Biol 36:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolf TJ, Schmid-Hempel P (1989) Extra loads and foraging life span in honeybee workers. J Anim Ecol 58:943–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolf TJ, Schmid-Hempel P, Ellington CP, Stevenson RD (1989) Physiological correlates of foraging efforts in honey-bees: oxygen consumption and nectar load. Funct Ecol 3:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ydenberg R, Schmid-Hempel P (1994) Modelling social insect foraging. TREE 9:491–493Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Dornhaus
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • E. J. Collins
    • 3
  • F.-X. Dechaume-Moncharmont
    • 2
  • A. I. Houston
    • 2
  • N. R. Franks
    • 2
  • J. M. McNamara
    • 3
  1. 1.Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations