Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 885–894 | Cite as

Nest and food search behaviour in desert ants, Cataglyphis: a critical comparison

  • Sarah E. Pfeffer
  • Siegfried Bolek
  • Harald Wolf
  • Matthias Wittlinger
Original Paper


North African desert ants, Cataglyphis, use path integration to calculate a home vector during their foraging trips, constantly informing them about their position relative to the nest. This home vector is also used to find the way back to a productive feeding site the ant has encountered and thus memorized. When the animal fails to arrive at its goal after having run off the home or food vector, a systematic search is initiated. The basic search strategies are identical for nest and food searches, consisting of a search spiral superimposed by a random walk. While nest searches have been investigated in much detail, food site searches have received comparatively little attention. Here, we quantify and compare nest and food site searches recorded under similar conditions, particularly constant nest–feeder distance, and we observe notable differences in nest and food search performances. The parameters of nest searches are relatively constant and improve little with experience, although those small improvements had not been recognized previously. Food searches, by contrast, are more flexible and cover smaller or larger areas, mainly depending on the reliability of food encounter over several visits. Intriguingly, food site searches may be significantly more focussed than nest searches, although the nest should be the most important goal in an ant’s life. These results demonstrate both adaptability and high accuracy of the ants’ search programme.


Desert ant Cataglyphis Navigation Systematic search Food search Nest search 



We thank Kathrin Judith Schwannauer for precious help with the field experiments and Ursula Seifert for editing the text. Andrea Wirmer deserves special thanks for advice with statistical analyses. We are grateful to Ken Cheng and two anonymous reviewers for comments that improved the manuscript. Infrastructural support was provided by the University of Ulm. Financial support was provided for an initial part of this study by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (WO466/9-1) and the Volkswagen-Stiftung (I 78 580) through Grants to HW. This work forms part of the Ph.D. dissertation by Sarah E. Pfeffer.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financially or otherwise.

Ethical standard

All experiments comply with the current laws in both Tunisia and Germany, particularly with regard to animal welfare.

Supplementary material

10071_2015_858_MOESM1_ESM.docx (505 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 504 kb)


  1. Åkesson S, Wehner R (2002) Visual navigation in desert ants Cataglyphis fortis: are snapshots coupled to a celestial system of reference? J Exp Biol 205:1971–1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andel D, Wehner R (2004) Path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis: how to make a homing ant run away from home. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:1485–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisch-Knaden S, Wehner R (2003) Landmark memories are more robust when acquired at the nest site than en route: experiments in desert ants. Naturwissenschaften 90:127–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolek S, Wittlinger M, Wolf H (2012a) Establishing food site vectors in desert ants. J Exp Biol 215:653–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolek S, Wittlinger M, Wolf H (2012b) What counts for ants? How return behaviour and food search of Cataglyphis ants are modified by variations in food quantity and experience. J Exp Biol 215:3218–3222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng K, Narendra A, Wehner R (2006) Behavioral ecology of odometric memories in desert ants: acquisition, retention, and integration. Behav Ecol 2:227–235Google Scholar
  7. Cheng K, Narendra A, Sommer S, Wehner R (2009) Traveling in clutter: navigation in the Central Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti. Behav Process 80:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collett M, Collett T (2009) Local and global navigational coordinate systems in desert ants. J Exp Biol 212:901–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collett M, Collett T, Wehner R (1999) Calibration of vector navigation in desert ants. Curr Biol 9:1031–1034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fourcassié V, Traniello JFA (1993) Effects of experience on food-searching behavior in the ant Formica schaufussi (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Insect Behav 6:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fourcassié V, Coughlin D, Traniello JFA (1992) Fractal analysis of search behavior in ants. Naturwissenschaften 79:87–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Merkle T, Wehner R (2009) Repeated training does not improve the path integrator in desert ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Merkle T, Wehner R (2010) Desert ants use foraging distance to adapt the nest search to the uncertainty of the path integrator. Behav Ecol 21:349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merkle T, Knaden M, Wehner R (2006) Uncertainty about nest position influences systematic search strategies in desert ants. J Exp Biol 209:3545–3549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Müller M, Wehner R (1988) Path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 85:5287–5290PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Müller M, Wehner R (1994) The hidden spiral: systematic search and path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. J Comp Physiol A 175:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Müller M, Wehner R (2010) Path integration provides a scaffold for landmark learning in desert ants. Curr Biol 20:1368–1371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Narendra A (2007) Homing strategies of the Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti II. Interaction of the path integrator with visual cue information. J Exp Biol 10:1804–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ronacher B (2008) Path integration as the basic navigation mechanism of the desert ant Cataglyphis fortis (Forel, 1902) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 11:53–62Google Scholar
  20. Ronacher B, Wehner R (1995) Desert ants Cataglyphis fortis use self-induced optic flow to measure distances travelled. J Comp Physiol A 177:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmid-Hempel P (1984) Individually different foraging methods in the desert ant Cataglyphis bicolor (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schultheiss P, Cheng K (2011) Finding the nest: inbound searching behaviour in the Australian desert ant, Melophorus bagoti. Anim Behav 81:1031–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schultheiss P, Cheng K (2012) Finding food: outbound searching behavior in the Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti. Behav Ecol 24:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seidl T, Wehner R (2006) Visual and tactile learning of ground structures in desert ants. J Exp Biol 209:3336–3344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Srinivasan MV (2001) Animal behaviour: homing in on ant navigation. Nature 411:752–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steck K, Hansson BS, Knaden M (2009) Smells like home: desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis, use olfactory landmarks to pinpoint the nest. Front Zool 6:5. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-6-5 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wehner R (1982) Himmelsnavigation bei Insekten: Neurophysiologie und Verhalten. Neujahrsblatt Naturforsch Ges Zürich 184:1–132Google Scholar
  28. Wehner R (1992) Arthropods. In: Papi F (ed) Animal homing. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 45–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wehner R (2003) Desert ant navigation: how miniature brains solve complex tasks. J Comp Physiol A 189:579–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wehner R (2009) The architecture of the desert ant’s navigational toolkit (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 12:85–96Google Scholar
  31. Wehner R, Srinivasan MV (1981) Searching behaviour of desert ants, genus Cataglyphis (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). J Comp Physiol A 142:315–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wehner R, Wehner S (1986) Path integration in desert ants. Approaching a long-standing puzzle in insect navigation. Monit Zool Ital 20:309–331Google Scholar
  33. Wehner R, Wehner S (1990) Insect navigation: use of maps or Ariadne’s thread. Ethol Ecol Evol 2:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wehner R, Harkness RD, Schmid-Hempel P (1983) Foraging strategies in individually searching ants, Cataglyphis bicolor (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  35. Wehner R, Marsh AC, Wehner S (1992) Desert ants on a thermal tightrope. Nature 357:586–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wehner R, Gallizzi K, Frei C, Vesely M (2002) Calibration processes in desert ant navigation: vector courses and systematic search. J Comp Physiol A 188:338–683Google Scholar
  37. Wehner R, Meier C, Zollikofer C (2004) The ontogeny of foraging behaviour in desert ants, Cataglyphis bicolor. Ecol Entomol 29:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wittlinger M, Wolf H (2013) Homing distance in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis, remains unaffected by disturbance of walking behaviour and visual input. J Exp Biol 210:198–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolf H (2008) Desert ants adjust their approach to a foraging site according to experience. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolf H, Wehner R (2005) Desert ants compensate for navigation uncertainty. J Exp Biol 208:4223–4230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolf H, Wittlinger M, Bolek S (2012) Re-Visiting of plentiful food sources and food search strategies in desert ants. Front Neurosci 5(6):102. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2012.00102 Google Scholar
  42. Wystrach A, Schwarz S (2014) Ants use a predictive mechanism to compensate for passive displacements by wind. Curr Biol 23:1083–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah E. Pfeffer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Siegfried Bolek
    • 1
  • Harald Wolf
    • 1
  • Matthias Wittlinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of NeurobiologyUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.Institute of NeurobiologyUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations