Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 347–356 | Cite as

Weighting waiting in collective decision-making

  • Robert Planqué
  • Anna Dornhaus
  • Nigel R. Franks
  • Tim Kovacs
  • James A. R. Marshall
Original Article


Animals searching for food, mates, or a home often need to decide when to stop looking and choose the best option found so far. By re-analyzing experimental data from experiments by Mallon et al. (Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:352–359, 2001), we demonstrate that house-hunting ant colonies are gradually more committed to new nests during the emigration. Early in house-hunting, individual ants were flexibly committed to new nest sites. However, when carrying to a new nest had started, ants hardly ever switched preference. Using a theoretical model based on experimental data, we test at which stage flexible commitment influences speed and accuracy most. We demonstrate that ant colonies have found a good compromise between impatience and procrastination. Early flexibility combined with later rigidity is identically effective as other strategies that include flexible commitment, but it is particularly good when emigration conditions are harsh.


House-hunting behavior Ants Decision-making Emigration 


  1. Britton N, Franks N, Pratt S, Seeley T (2002) Deciding on a new home: how do honeybees agree? Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1383–1388Google Scholar
  2. Conradt L (1998) Could asynchrony in activity between the sexes cause intersexual social segregation in ruminants? Proc Roy Soc London B 265:1359–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conradt L, Roper T (2005) Consensus decision making in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 20:449–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curio E (1987) Animal decision-making and the ‘Concorde Fallacy’. Trends Ecol Evol 2(6):148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawkins R, Carlisle T (1976) Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature 262:131–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawkins R, Dawkins M (1973) Decisions and the uncertainty of behaviour. Behaviour 45:83–103Google Scholar
  7. Franks N, Dornhaus A, Fitzsimmons J, Stevens M (2003) Speed vs accuracy in collective decision making. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:2457–2463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franks N, Pratt S, Britton N, Mallon E, Sumpter D (2002) Information flow, opinion polling and collective intelligence in house-hunting social insects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:1567–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franks N, Richardson T (2006) Teaching in tandem running ants. Nature 439:153Google Scholar
  10. Houston A, McNamara J (1999) Models of adaptive behaviour. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutchinson J (2005) Is more choice always desirable? Evidence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biol Rev 79:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janetos A (1980) Strategies of female choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krause J, Ruxton G (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Mallon E, Pratt S, Franks N (2001) Individual and collective decision-making during the nest site selection by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:352–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marshall J, Dornhaus A, Franks N, Kovacs T (2006) Noise, cost and speed-accuracy trade-offs: decision making in a decentralised system. J Roy Soc Interface 3:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Michener C (1974) The social behavior of the bees. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Myerscough M (2003) Dancing for a decision: a matrix model for nest-site choice by honeybees. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelder J, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7:308–313Google Scholar
  19. Parker G (1983) Mate quality and mating decisions. In: P. Bateson (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 141–166Google Scholar
  20. Partridge L, Partridge K, Franks N (1997) Field survey of a monogynous leptothoracine ant (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): evidence of seasonal polydomy? Insectes Soc 44:75-83Google Scholar
  21. Pratt S (2005) Quorum sensing by encounter rates in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol 16(2):488–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pratt S, Mallon E, Sumpter D, Franks N (2002) Quorum-dependent recruitment and collective decision-making during colony emigration by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Real L (1990) Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am Nat 136(3):376–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruckstuhl K, Neuhaus P (2002) Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses. Biol Rev 77:77–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Seeley T, Buhrman S (2001) Nest-site selection in honeybees: how well do swarms implement the ‘best-of-N’ decision rule? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:416–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Winston M (1987) The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood S, Thomas M (1999) Super-sensitivity to structure in biological models. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:565–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Planqué
    • 1
    • 3
  • Anna Dornhaus
    • 2
  • Nigel R. Franks
    • 3
  • Tim Kovacs
    • 1
  • James A. R. Marshall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceBristol UniversityBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesBristol UniversityBristolUK

Personalised recommendations