Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 141–148 | Cite as

Decision making in ant foragers (Lasius niger) facing conflicting private and social information

  • Christoph Grüter
  • Tomer J. Czaczkes
  • Francis L. W. Ratnieks
Original Paper


Foragers of many ant species use pheromone trails to guide nestmates to food sources. During foraging, individual workers can also learn the route to a food source. Foragers of the mass-recruiting ant Lasius niger use both pheromone trails and memory to locate a food source. As a result, an experienced forager can have a conflict between social information (trail pheromones) and private information (route memory) at trail bifurcations. We tested decision making in L. niger foragers facing such an informational conflict in situations where both the strength of the pheromone trail and the number of previous visits to the food source varied. Foragers quickly learned the branch at a T bifurcation that leads to a food source, with 74.6% choosing correctly after one previous visit and 95.3% after three visits. Pheromone trails had a weaker effect on choice behaviour of naïve ants, with only 61.6% and 70.2% choosing the branch that had been marked by one or 20 foragers versus an unmarked branch. When there was a conflict between private and social information, memory overrides pheromone after just one previous visit to a food source. Most ants, 82–100%, chose the branch where they had collected food during previous foraging trips, with the proportion depending on the number of previous trips (1 v. 3) but not on the strength of the pheromone trail (1 v. 20). In addition, the presence of a pheromone trail at one branch in a bifurcation had no effect on the time it took an experienced ant to choose the correct branch (the branch without pheromone). These results suggest that private information (navigational memory) dominates over social information (chemical tail) in orientation decisions during foraging activities in experienced L. niger foragers.


Lasius niger Foraging Pheromone trails Route memory Decision making 



We thank Thomas Durance and Lucy Taylor for help with data collection. C.G. was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF grant PBBEP3-123648). T.C. was supported by a PhD studentship from the BBSRC.

Ethical standards

The experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aron S, Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1993) Memory and chemical communication in the orientation of two mass-recruiting ant species. Insectes Soc 40:369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barth FG, Hrncir M, Jarau S (2008) Signals and cues in the recruitment behavior of stingless bees (Meliponini). J Comp Physiol A 194:313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D (2007) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.99875-7.Google Scholar
  4. Beckers R, Goss S, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1989) Colony size, communication and ant foraging strategy. Psyche 96:239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Goss S, Pasteels JM (1990) Collective decision making through food recruitment. Insectes Soc 37:258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Goss S (1992) Trail laying behaviour during food recruitment in the ant Lasius niger (L.). Insectes Soc 39:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Goss S (1993) Modulation of trail laying in the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and its role in the collective selection of a food source. J Insect Behav 6:751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beverly BD, McLendon H, Nacu S, Holmes S, Gordon DM (2009) How site fidelity leads to individual differences in the foraging activity of harvester ants. Behav Ecol 20:633–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. TREE 24:127–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll CR, Janzen DH (1973) Ecology of foraging by ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:231–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collett TS, Collett M (2002) Memory use in insect visual navigation. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:542–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Collett TS, Graham P, Durier V (2003) Route learning by insects. Curr Opin Neurobiol 13:718–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM, Verhaeghe JC (1983) Probabilistic behaviour in ants: a strategy of errors? J Theor Biol 105:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Detrain C, Deneubourg JL (2008) Collective decision-making and foraging patterns in ants and honeybees. Adv Insect Physiol 35:123–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devigne C, Detrain C (2002) Collective exploration and area marking in the ant Lasius niger. Insectes Soc 49:357–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dussutour A, Deneubourg JL, Fourcassié V (2005) Temporal organization of bi-directional traffic in the ant Lasius niger (L.). J Exp Biol 208:2903–2912CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Evison SEF, Petchey OL, Beckerman AP, Ratnieks FLW (2008) Combined use of pheromone trails and visual landmarks by the common garden ant Lasius niger. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grüter C, Farina WM (2009) The honeybee waggle dance: can we follow the steps? TREE 24:242–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Grüter C, Balbuena MS, Farina WM (2008) Informational conflicts created by the waggle dance. Proc R Soc B 275:1321–1327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hangartner W (1967) Spezifität und Inaktivierung des Spurpheromons von Lasius fuliginosus Latr. Und Orientierung der Arbeiterinnen im Duftfeld. Z vergl Physiol 57:103–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison JF, Fewell JH, Stiller TM, Breed MD (1989) Effects of experience on use of orientation cues in the giant tropical ant. Anim Behav 37:869–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hölldobler B (1976) Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hölldobler B (1995) The chemistry of social regulation: multicomponent signals in ant societies. PNAS 92:19–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hölldobler B (1999) Multimodal signals in ant communication. J Comp Physiol A 184:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson DE, Ratnieks FLW (2006) Communication in ants. Curr Biol 16:R570–R574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jarau S (2009) Chemical communication during food exploitation in stingless bees. In: Jarau S, Hrncir M (eds) Food Exploitation by social insects: ecological, behavioral, and theoretical approaches. CRC University Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jarau S, Hrncir M (2009) Food exploitation by social insects: ecological, behavioral, and theoretical approaches. CRC University Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeanson R, Ratnieks FLW, Deneubourg JL (2003) Pheromone trail decay rates on different substrates in the Pharao’s ant, Monomorium pharaonis. Physiol Entomol 28:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning. Adv Stud Behav 35:333–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laland KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Learn Behav 32:4–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Le Breton J, Fourcassié V (2004) Information transfer during recruitment in the ant Lasius niger L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leadbeater E, Chittka L (2007) Social learning in insects—from miniature brains to consensus building. Curr Biol 17:R703–R713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Leadbeater E, Chittka L (2009) Bumble-bees learn the value of social cues through experience. Biol Letters 5:310–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindauer M, Kerr WE (1960) Communication between the workers of stingless bees. Bee World 41:29–71Google Scholar
  36. Mailleux AC, Detrain C, Deneubourg JL (2005) Triggering and persistence of trail-laying in foragers of the ant Lasius niger. J Insect Physiol 51:297–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Quinet Y, Pasteels JM (1996) Spatial specialization of the foragers and foraging strategy in Lasius fuliginosus (Latreille) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insectes Soc 43:333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ratnieks FLW (2008) Biomimicry: further insights from ant colonies? In: Liò P, Yoneki E, Crowcroft J, Verma DC (eds) Bio-inspired computing and communication. Springer, Berlin, pp 50–58Google Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  40. Ribbands CR (1949) The foraging method of individual honey-bees. J Anim Ecol 18:47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson EJH, Jackson DE, Holcombe M, Ratnieks FLW (2005) ‘No entry’ signal in ant foraging. Nature 438:442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosengren R, Fortelius W (1986) Ortstreue in foraging ants of the Formica rufa group—hierarchy of orienting cues and long-term memory. Insectes Soc 33:306–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salo O, Rosengren R (2001) Memory of location and site recognition in the Ant Formica uralensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ethology 107:737–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seppänen JT, Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Thomson RL (2007) Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology 88:1622–1633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Traniello JFA (1977) Recruitment behavior, orientation, and the organization of foraging in the carpenter ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus DeGeer (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Traniello JFA (1980) Colony specificity in the trail pheromone of an ant. Naturwissenschaften 67:361–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Völkl W, Woodring J, Fischer M, Lorenz MW, Hoffmann KH (1999) Ant-aphid mutualisms: the impact of honeydew production and honeydew sugar composition on ant preferences. Oecologia 118:483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. von Frisch K (1923) Über die Sprache der Bienen. Zool Jb Physiol 40:1–186Google Scholar
  49. von Frisch K (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, p 574Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Grüter
    • 1
  • Tomer J. Czaczkes
    • 1
  • Francis L. W. Ratnieks
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Apiculture and Social Insects, Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of SussexFalmerUK

Personalised recommendations