Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 393–407 | Cite as

How memory and motivation modulate the responses to trail pheromones in three ant species

  • Wolfhard von Thienen
  • Dirk Metzler
  • Volker Witte
Original Article

Abstract

Ants are able to modulate their behavior according to private and collective information. Collective information is coded in different concentrations of pheromone deposited in the environment, especially on ant trails, whereas private information is learned and memorized by individual ants. It has been shown that both kinds of information act synergistically on the collective trail-following behavior of ant colonies. Another important factor influencing ant behavior is their motivation to follow pheromone trails. Here, we show how private information and motivation modulate the response to collective information. We investigate these effects using a recently proposed approach that employs psychophysical methods to measure the response to varying pheromone concentrations. We studied the effect of private information (route memory) in the species Lasius niger, Euprenolepis procera, and Linepithema humile. Additionally, the effect of motivation was studied in the species E. procera and L. humile. Using psychophysical methods, we quantified these effects for important biological parameters like behavioral thresholds and error rates. The differential changes in these parameters between the three species imply specific adaptations to their environment.

Keywords

Ant behavior Pheromones Memory Motivation Starvation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards and conflict of interest

The authors declare that the experiments comply with the current law of the country in which they had been performed and that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aron S, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1988) Visual cues and trail-following idiosyncracy in Leptothorax unifasciatus: an orientation process during foraging. Insectes Sociaux 35:355–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aron S, Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1993) Memory and chemical communication in the orientation of two mass-recruiting ant species. Insect Soc 40:369–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird JC (1970) Psychophysical analysis of visual space, 1st edn. Pergamon, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckers R, Deneubourg J, Goss S (1992) Trail laying behaviour during food recruitment in the ant Lasius niger (L.). Insect Soc 39:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 6:751–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bestmann HJ, Kern F, Schafer D, Witschel MC (1992) 3,4-Dihydroisocoumarins, a new class of ant trail pheromones. Angew Chem Int Edit 6:795–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavill GWK, Robertson PL, Davies NW (1979) An Argentine ant aggregation factor. Experientia (Basel) 35:989–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavill GWK, Davies NW, McDonald JF (1980) Characterization of aggregation factors and associated compounds from the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis. J Chem Ecol 6:371–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Czaczkes TJ, Grüter C, Jones SM, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Synergy between social and private information increases foraging efficiency in ants. Biol Lett 7:521–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Czaczkes TJ, Gruter C, Ellis L, Wood E, Ratnieks FL (2013) Ant foraging on complex trails: route learning and the role of trail pheromones in Lasius niger. J Exp Biol 216:188–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. de Biseau JC, Pasteels JM (2000) Response thresholds to recruitment signals and the regulation of foraging intensity in the ant Myrmica sabuleti (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Behav Processes 48:137–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorai-Raj S (2009) Binomial confidence intervals for several parameterizations. In: R package version 10-6/r2Google Scholar
  13. 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 63:261–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franks NR, Sendova-Franks AB (2013) Learning and Decision Making in a Social Context. In: Menzel R, Benjamin PR (eds) Invertebrate Learning and Memory (Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience). Academic Press/Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 530–545 Google Scholar
  15. Giraud T, Pedersen JS, Keller L (2002) Evolution of supercolonies: the Argentine ants of southern Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:6075–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Grüter C, Czaczkes TJ, Ratnieks FL (2011) Decision making in ant foragers (Lasius niger) facing conflicting private and social information. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:141–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I, II. J Theor Biol 7:1–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer M, Menzel R (1995) Learning and memory in the honeybee. J neurosci : off j Soc Neurosci 15:1617–30Google Scholar
  19. Hemelrijk CK, Hildenbrandt H (2011) Some causes of the variable shape of flocks of birds. PLoS One 6:e22479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hildenbrandt H, Carere C, Hemelrijk CK (2010) Self-organized aerial displays of thousands of starlings: a model. Behav Ecol 21:1349–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hölldobler B (1995) The chemistry of social regulation: multicomponent signals in ant societies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92:19–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hölldobler B (1999) Multimodal signals in ant communication. J Comp Physiol 184:129–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Mechanisms of dispersed central-place foraging in polydomous colonies of the Argentine ant. Anim Behav 59:433–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson RA (1991) Learning, memory, and foraging efficiency in two species of desert seed-harvester ants. Ecology 72:1408–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kingdom FAA, Prins N (2010) Psychophysics, 1st edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Laland KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Learn Behav 32:4–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mailleux AC, Deneubourg JL, Detrain C (2000) How do ants assess food volume? Anim Behav 59:1061–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mailleux A-C, Buffin A, Detrain C, Deneubourg JL (2011) Recruitment in starved nests: the role of direct and indirect interactions between scouts and nestmates in the ant Lasius niger. Insect Soc 58:559–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mallis A (1942) Half a century with the successful Argentine ant. Sci Mon 55:536–45Google Scholar
  31. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynolds CW (1987) Flocks, herds, and schools: a distributed behavioral model. Comput Graph 21:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robertson PL, Dudzinski ML, Orton CJ (1980) Excocrine gland involvement in trailing behaviour in the argentine ant (Formicidae: Dolichoderinae). Anim Behav 28:1255–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodrigues D, Weiss MR (2012) Reward tracking and memory decay in the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ethology 118:1122–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarris V (2006) Relational psychophysics in humans and animals. Psychology, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Seifert B (2007) Die Ameisen Mittel- und Nordeuropas. Lutra Verlags- und Vertriebsgesellschaft, TauerGoogle Scholar
  37. Suarez AV, Bolger DT, Case TJ (1998) Effects of fragmentation and invasion on native ant communities in coastal southern California. Ecology 79:2041–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Vorhis Key SE, Baker TC (1982) Trail-following responses of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr) to a synthetic trail pheromone component and analogs. J Chem Ecol 8:3–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. von Beeren C, Lizon à l’Allemand S, Hashim R, Witte V (2014) Collective exploitation of a temporally unpredictable food source: mushroom harvesting by the ant Euprenolepis procera. Anim Behav 89:71–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. von Thienen W, Metzler D, Choe D-H, Witte V (2014) Pheromone communication in ants: a detailed analysis of concentration dependent decisions in three species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1611–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. von Thienen W, Metzler D, Witte V (2015) Modelling shortest path selection of the ant Linepithema humile using psychophysical theory and realistic parameter values. Journal of Theoretical Biology 372:168–178Google Scholar
  42. Wetterer JK, Wild AL, Suarez AV, Roura-Pascual N, Espadaler X (2009) Worldwide spread of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 12:187–94Google Scholar
  43. Wilson EB (1927) Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 22:209–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson EO (1958) A chemical releaser of alarm and digging behavior in the ant Pogonomyrmex badius (Latreille). Psyche 65:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson EO, Pavan M (1959) Glandular sources and specificity of some chemical releasers of social behavior in dolichoderine ants. Psyche 66:70–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Witte V, Maschwitz U (2008) Mushroom harvesting ants in the tropical rainforest. Naturwissenschaften 95:1049–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfhard von Thienen
    • 1
  • Dirk Metzler
    • 1
  • Volker Witte
  1. 1.Department Biologie IILudwig-Maximilians Universität MünchenPlaneggGermany

Personalised recommendations