Comparing inclined locomotion in a ground-living and a climbing ant species: sagittal plane kinematics

Original Paper

Abstract

Formicine ants are able to detect slopes in the substrates they crawl on. It was assumed that hair fields between the main segments of the body and between the proximal leg segments contribute to graviception which triggers a change of posture in response to substrate slopes. The sagittal kinematics of two ant species were investigated and compared on different slopes. Cataglyphis fortis, a North African desert ant, is well known for its extraordinary sense of orientation in texturally almost uniform habitats, while Formica pratensis, a common central-European species, primarily uses landmarks and pheromone traces for orientation. A comparison of these two species reveals differences in postural adaptations during inclined locomotion. Only minor slope-dependent angular adjustments were observed. The largest is a 25° head rotation for Cataglyphis, even if the slope is changed by 150°, suggesting dramatic changes in the field of vision. The trunk’s pitch adjustment towards the increasing slope is low in both species. On all slopes Cataglyphis achieves higher running speeds than Formica and displays greater slope-dependent variation in body height. This indicates different strategies for coping with changing slopes. These specific aspects have to be reflected in the ants’ respective mode of slope perception.

Keywords

Climbing Cataglyphis Formica Inclined locomotion Sagittal kinematics 

List of symbols

φ

Slope of the substrate

vabs

Speed parallel to the substrate

lT

Individual length of the alitrunk (thorax)

vrel = vabs/lT

Relative speed

habs

Perpendicular distance between substrate and centre of mass (body height)

hCOM = habs/lT

Relative distance between substrate and centre of mass

b

Typical fluctuation of the centre of mass perpendicular to the substrate

α

Angle between substrate and alitrunk axis

β

Angle between caput (head) and alitrunk

γ

Angle between caput and substrate

δ

Angle between alitrunk and gaster (abdomen)

ε

Angle between gaster and substrate

g

Gravitational acceleration

References

  1. Alexander R (1991) Energy-saving mechanisms in walking and running. J Exp Biol 160:55–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Autumn K, Hsieh ST, Dudek DM, Chen J, Chitaphan C, Full RJ (2006) Dynamics of geckos running vertically. J Exp Biol 209:260–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson-Kuhta P, Trank TV, Smith JL (1998) Forms of forward quadrupedal locomotion. II. A comparison of posture, hindlimb kinematics, and motor patterns for upslope and level walking. J Neurophysiol 79:1687–1701PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cartmill M (1985) Climbing. In: Hildebrand M, Bramble DM, Liem KF, Wake DB (eds) Functional vertebrate morphology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–88Google Scholar
  5. Clemente CJ, Federle W (2008) Pushing versus pulling: division of labour between tarsal attachment pads in cockroaches. Proc Biol Sci 275:1329–1336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruse H (1976) The function of the legs in the free walking stick insect, Carausius morosus. J Comp Physiol A 112:235–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dai Z, Gorb SN, Schwarz U (2002) Roughness-dependent friction force of the tarsal claw system in the beetle Pachnoda marginata (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). J Exp Biol 205:2479–2488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Endlein T, Federle W (2008) Walking on smooth or rough ground: passive control of pretarsal attachment in ants. J Comp Physiol A 194:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Federle W, Endlein T (2004) Locomotion and adhesion: dynamic control of adhesive surface contact in ants. Arthropod Struct Dev 33:67–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Frantsevich L, Gorb S (2004) Structure and mechanics of the tarsal chain in the hornet, Vespa crabro (hymenoptera: vespidae): implications on the attachment mechanism. Arthropod Struct Dev 33:77–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Frazier SF, Larsen GS, Neff D, Quimby L, Carney M, DiCaprio RA, Zill SN (1999) Elasticity and movements of the cockroach tarsus in walking. J Comp Physiol A 185:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frischholz RW, Spinnler KP (1993) A class of algorithms for real-time subpixel registration. Proc SPIE 1989:50–59. doi:10.1117/12.164889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fukushi T, Wehner R (2004) Navigation in wood ants Formica japonica: context dependent use of landmarks. J Exp Biol 207:3431–3439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Full R, Tullis A (1990) Energetics of ascent: insects on inclines. J Exp Biol 149:307–317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Geyer H, Seyfarth A, Blickhan R (2006) Compliant leg behaviour explains basic dynamics of walking and running. Proc Biol Sci 273:2861–2867CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gladun D, Gorb S (2007) Insect walking techniques on thin stems. Arthropod Plant Interact 1:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldman DI, Chen TS, Dudek DM, Full RJ (2006) Dynamics of rapid vertical climbing in cockroaches reveals a template. J Exp Biol 209:2990–3000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Grah G, Wehner R, Ronacher B (2005) Path integration in a three-dimensional maze: ground distance estimation keeps desert ants Cataglyphis fortis on course. J Exp Biol 208:4005–4011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham P, Collett TS (2002) View-based navigation in insects: how wood ants (Formica rufa L.) look at and are guided by extended landmarks. J Exp Biol 205:2499–2509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Günther M, Weihmann T (2009) The load distribution among three legs on the wall-model predictions. J Math Biol (submitted)Google Scholar
  21. Higham TE, Jayne BC (2004) Locomotion of lizards on inclines and perches: hindlimb kinematics of an arboreal specialist and a terrestrial generalist. J Exp Biol 207:233–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hölldobler B (1995) The chemistry of social regulation: multicomponent signals in ant societies. PNAS USA 92:19–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jayne BC, Irschick DJ (1999) Effects of incline and speed on the three-dimensional hindlimb kinematics of a generalized iguanian lizard (Dipsosaurus dorsalis). J Exp Biol 202:143–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaliyamoorthy S, Quinn RD, Zill SN (2005) Force sensors in hexapod locomotion. Int J Robot Res 24:563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larsen GS, Frazier SF, Fish SE, Zill SN (1995) Effects of load inversion in cockroach walking. J Comp Physiol A 176:229–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Leroux A, Fung J, Barbeau H (2002) Postural adaptation to walking on inclined surfaces: I. Normal strategies. Gait Posture 15:64–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Markl H (1964) Geomenotaktische Fehlorientierung bei Formica polyctena FÖRSTER. Z Vergl Physiol 48:552–586Google Scholar
  28. Müller M, Wehner R (1988) Path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. PNAS USA 85:5287–5290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Reinhardt L, Weihmann T, Blickhan R (2009) Dynamics and kinematics of ant locomotion: do wood ants climb on level surfaces? J Exp Biol 212:2426–2435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ridgel AL, Ritzmann RE (2005) Insights into age-related locomotor declines from studies of insects. Ageing Res Rev 4:23–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruina A, Bertram JE, Srinivasan M (2005) A collisional model of the energetic cost of support work qualitatively explains leg sequencing in walking and galloping, pseudo-elastic leg behavior in running and the walk-to-run transition. J Theor Biol 237:170–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Seidl T, Wehner R (2008) Walking on inclines: how do desert ants monitor slope and step length. Front Zool 5:8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith JL, Carlson-Kuhta P, Trank TV (1998) Forms of forward quadrupedal locomotion. III. A comparison of posture, hindlimb kinematics, and motor patterns for downslope and level walking. J Neurophysiol 79:1702–1716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Snyder GK, Carello CA (2008) Body mass and the energy efficiency of locomotion: lessons from incline running. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 150:144–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wehner R (2003) Desert ant navigation: how miniature brains solve complex tasks. J Comp Physiol A 189:579–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wittlinger M, Wehner R, Wolf H (2006) The ant odometer: stepping on stilts and stumps. Science 312:1965–1967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wittlinger M, Wehner R, Wolf H (2007a) The desert ant odometer: a stride integrator that accounts for stride length and walking speed. J Exp Biol 210:198–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wittlinger M, Wolf H, Wehner R (2007b) Hair plate mechanoreceptors associated with body segments are not necessary for three-dimensional path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. J Exp Biol 210:375–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wohlgemuth S, Ronacher B, Wehner R (2001) Ant odometry in the third dimension. Nature 411:795–798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wohlgemuth S, Ronacher B, Wehner R (2002) Distance estimation in the third dimension in desert ants. J Comp Physiol A 188:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolf H, Wehner R (2005) Desert ants compensate for navigation uncertainty. J Exp Biol 208:4223–4230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Zaaf A, van Damme R, Herrel A, Aerts P (2001) Spatio-temporal gait characteristics of level and vertical locomotion in a ground-dwelling and a climbing gecko. J Exp Biol 204:1233–1246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Zill S, Schmitz J, Büschges A (2004) Load sensing and control of posture and locomotion. Arthropod Struct Dev 33:273–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Zollikofer C (1994a) Stepping patterns in ants II. Influence of body morphology. J Exp Biol 192:107–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Zollikofer C (1994b) Stepping patterns in ants I. Influence of speed and curvature. J Exp Biol 192:95–106PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science of Motion, Institute of Sport ScienceFriedrich-Schiller-UniversityJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations