Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 5, pp 959–968 | Cite as

The function of polydomy: the ant Crematogaster torosa preferentially forms new nests near food sources and fortifies outstations

  • Michele C. Lanan
  • Anna Dornhaus
  • Judith L. Bronstein
Original Paper


Many ant species are polydomous, forming multiple spatially segregated nests that exchange workers and brood. However, why polydomy occurs is still uncertain. We investigated whether colonies of Crematogaster torosa form new polydomous nests to better exploit temporally stable food resources. Specifically, we tested the effect of food presence or absence and distance on the likelihood that colonies would form a new nest. Because this species also forms little-known structures that house only workers without brood (outstations), we also compared the function of this structure with true nests. Laboratory-reared colonies were connected to a new foraging arena containing potential nest sites with or without food for 4 months. When food was present, most colonies formed polydomous nests nearby and the remainder formed outstations. When food was absent, the behavior of colonies differed significantly, frequently forming outstations but never polydomous nests. Distance had no effect on the type of structure formed, but when food was present, a larger proportion of the workforce moved shorter distances. Workers often fortified the entrances to both structures and used them for storage of dried insect tissue (“jerky”). In an investigation of spatial fidelity, we found that workers on the between-nest trail were associated with the original nest, whereas workers collecting food were more likely to be associated with the new nest or outstation. C. torosa appears to have a flexible colony structure, forming both outstations and polydomous nests. Polydomous nests in this species were associated with foraging and were only formed near food resources.


Ants Polydomy Outstations Social insects Collective behavior Foraging 



We thank Mary Price, Emily Jones, Jenny Jandt, Tuan Cao, Nhi Duong, Kim Franklin, Anne Estes, Margaret Couvillon, Aimee Dunlap, Martha Hunter, Dan Papaj, Cédric Devigne, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on this manuscript, and Emily Kaleugher for laboratory assistance. We would also like to thank the Center for Insect Science at the University of Arizona and National Science Foundation grant no. IOS 0841756 for funding this research.

Declaration of integrity

These experiments comply with the current laws of the United States of America. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Anderson C, McShea DW (2001) Intermediate-level parts in insect societies: adaptive structures that ants build away from the nest. Insect Soc 48:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banschbach VS, Herbers JM (1996) Complex colony structure in social insects 2. Reproduction, queen-worker conflict, and levels of selection. Evolution 50:298–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banschbach VS, Brunelle A, Bartlett KM, Grivetti L, Yeamans RL (2006) Tool use by the forest ant Aphaenogaster rudis: ecology and task allocation. Insect Soc 53:463–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cerda X, Dahbi A, Retana J (2002) Spatial patterns, temporal variability, and the role of multi-nest colonies in a monogynous Spanish desert ant. Ecol Entomol 27:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crespi BJ (2001) The evolution of social behavior in microorganisms. Trends Ecol Evol 16:178–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Debout G, Schatz B, Elias M, McKey D (2007) Polydomy in ants: what we know, what we think we know, and what remains to be done. Biol J Linn Soc 90:319–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Del Val E, Dirzo R (2004) Myrmecophily: plants with their own army. Interciencia 29:673-677Google Scholar
  8. Detrain C, Tasse O (2000) Seed drops and caches by the harvester ant Messor barbarus: do they contribute to seed dispersal in Mediterranean grasslands? Naturwissenschaften 87:373–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devigne C, Detrain C (2006) How does food distance influence foraging in the ant Lasius niger: the importance of home-range marking. Insect Soc 53:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillier FX, Wehner R (2004) Spatio-temporal patterns of colony distribution in monodomous and polydomous species of North African desert ants, genus Cataglyphis. Insect Soc 51:186–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dornhaus A, Franks NR (2008) Individual and collective cognition in ants and other insects (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 11:215–226Google Scholar
  12. Droual R (1984) Anti-predator behavior in the ant Pheidole desertorum—the importance of multiple nests. Anim Behav 32:1054–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fewell JH, Harrison JF, Stiller TM, Breed MD (1992) Distance effects on resource profitability and recruitment in the giant tropical ant, Paraponera clavata. Oecologia 92:542–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gayahan GG, Tschinkel WR (2008) Fire ants, Solenopsis invicta, dry and store insect pieces for later use. Journal of Insect Science 8:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herz H, Beyschlag W, Holldobler B (2007) Herbivory rate of leaf-cutting ants in a tropical moist forest in Panama at the population and ecosystem scales. Biotropica 39:482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The Ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  17. Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Mechanisms of dispersed central-place foraging in polydomous colonies of the Argentine ant. Anim Behav 59:433–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL (2010) Ant Ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Lanan MC (2010) Collective decision-making and foraging in a community of desert ants. In: Entomology and Insect Science, vol PhD. University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  20. Laskis KO, Tschinkel WR (2009) The seasonal natural history of the ant, Dolichoderus mariae, in northern Florida. J Insect Sci 9:26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Longino JT (2003) The Crematogaster (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Myrmicinae) of Costa Rica. Zootaxa 151:1–150Google Scholar
  22. MacMahon JA, Mull JF, Crist TO (2000) Harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.): their community and ecosystem influences. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:265–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mallon EB, Pratt SC, Franks NR (2001) Individual and collective decision-making during nest site selection by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:352–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mody K, Linsenmair KE (2003) Finding its place in a competitive ant community: leaf fidelity of Camponotus sericeus. Insect Soc 50:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mueller UG, Gerardo NM, Aanen DK, Six DL, Schultz TR (2005) The evolution of agriculture in insects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:563–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pedersen JS, Boomsma JJ (1999) Genetic analysis of colony structure in polydomous and polygynous ant populations. Biol J Linn Soc 66:115–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Penick CA, Tschinkel WR (2008) Thermoregulatory brood transport in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Insect Soc 55:176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfeiffer M, Linsenmair KE (1998) Polydomy and the organization of foraging in a colony of the Malaysian giant ant Camponotus gigas (Hym./Form.). Oecologia 117:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pratt SC (2005) Quorum sensing by encounter rates in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol 16:488–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ratnieks FLW, Anderson C (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies. II. Use of queueing delay information in recruitment. Am Nat 154:536–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seeley TD, Visscher PK, Passino KM (2006) Group decision making in honey bee swarms. Am Sci 94:220–229Google Scholar
  32. Slade AJ, Hutchings MJ (1987) The effects of nutrient availability on foraging in the clonal herb Glechoma hederacea. J Ecol 75:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV (2003) The colony structure and population biology of invasive ants. Conserv Biol 17:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner JS (1999) The extended organism: the physiology of animal-built structures. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson D, Sober E (1989) Reviving the superorganism. J Theor Biol 136:337–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele C. Lanan
    • 1
  • Anna Dornhaus
    • 2
  • Judith L. Bronstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Program in Entomology and Insect ScienceThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations