Advertisement

Journal of Ethology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 31–39 | Cite as

Individual variation and positive feedback initiate aggregation in Lasius japonicus

  • Shumpei HisamotoEmail author
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Aggregation is the most basic collective behaviour in social animals, including ants. The objective of this study was to investigate the role of initial fluctuation and positive feedback in the aggregation mechanism of the ant Lasius japonicus. To analyse the initial process of aggregation, we collected detailed behavioural data from a limited number of individuals. The results indicated that a voluntarily pausing individual was necessary for the occurrence of aggregation and also that individual variation contributed to aggregation size. To describe the role of individual variation and positive feedback in the initiation of aggregation, we developed a mathematical model that showed similar characteristics to the Monte Carlo simulation. Overall, this study suggests that individual variation and positive feedback markedly change the collective behaviour of ants.

Keywords

Ants Collective behaviour Polyethism Monte Carlo simulation Interaction Direct contact Swarm behaviour 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Hideo Iwasaki and Yukio-Pegio Gunji for their comments on the manuscript. I also thank Hiraku Nishimori and Atsuko Takamatsu, as well as the staff of the Iwasaki and Takamatsu Labs, for their technical support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

10164_2018_564_MOESM1_ESM.avi (782 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (AVI 782 kb)
10164_2018_564_MOESM2_ESM.avi (195 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (AVI 194 kb)

References

  1. Barabasi A-L (2005) The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature 435:207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazazi S, Bartumeus F, Hale JJ, Couzin ID (2012) Intermittent motion in desert locusts: behavioural complexity in simple environments. PLoS Comput Biol 8:e1002498.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blonder B, Dornhaus A (2011) Time-ordered networks reveal limitations to information flow in ant colonies. PLoS One 6:e20298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouchebti S, Ferrere S, Vittori K, Latil G, Dussutour A, Fourcassie V (2015) Contact rate modulates foraging efficiency in leaf cutting ants. Sci Rep 5:18650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camazine S, Deneubourg JL, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraula G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Charbonneau D, Hillis N, Dornhaus A (2015) ‘Lazy’ in nature: ant colony time budgets show high ‘inactivity’ in the field as well as in the lab. Insectes Soc 62:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole BJ (1991) Short-term activity cycles in ants: generation of periodicity by worker interaction. A Nat 137:244–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Depickère S, Fresneau D, Deneubourg JL (2004a) A basis for spatial and social patterns in ant species: dynamics and mechanisms of aggregation. J Insect Behav 17:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Depickère S, Fresneau D, Deneubourg JL (2004b) Dynamics of aggregation in Lasius niger (Formicidae): influence of polyethism. Insectes Soc 51:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Depickère S, Fresneau D, Deneubourg JL (2004c) The influence of red light on the aggregation of two castes of the ant, Lasius niger. J Insect Physiol 50:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Depickère S, Fresneau D, Deneubourg JL (2008) Effect of social and environmental factors on ant aggregation: a general response? J Insect Physiol 54:1349–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon DM (1995) The expandable network of ant exploration. Anim Behav 50:995–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon DM (2011) The fusion of behavioural ecology and ecology. Behav Ecol 22:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon DM, Mehdiabadi NJ (1999) Encounter rate and task allocation in harvester ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon DM, Paul RE, Thorpe K (1993) What is the function of encounter patterns in ant colonies? Anim Behav 45:1083–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayashi Y, Yuki M, Sugawara K, Kikuchi T, Tsuji K (2008) Analysis and modeling of ants’ behavior from single to multi-body. Artif Life Robot 13:120–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayashi Y, Yuki M, Kikuchi T, Tsuji K, Sugawara K (2015) Effect of pair interactions on transition probabilities between inactive and active states: achieving collective behaviour via pair interactions in social insects. J Phys Soc Jpn 84:104801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ishii Y, Hasegeawa E (2013) The mechanism underlying the regulation of work-related behaviors in the monomorphic ant, Myrmica kotokui. J Ethol 31:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koto A, Mersch D, Hollis B, Keller L (2015) Social isolation causes mortality by disrupting energy homeostasis in ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:583–591.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1869-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kramer BH, Schaible R, Scheuerlein A (2016) Worker lifespan is an adaptive trait during colony establishment in the long-lived ant Lasius niger. Exp Gerontol 85:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mersch DP (2016) The social mirror for division of labor: what network topology and dynamics can teach us about organization of work in insect societies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1087–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mersch DP, Crespi A, Keller L (2013) Tracking individuals shows spatial fidelity is a key regulator of ant social organization. Science 340:1090–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mizumoto N, Matsuura K (2013) Colony-specific architecture of shelter tubes by termites. Insectes Soc 60:525–530.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-013-0319-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Modlmeier AP, Keiser CN, Watters JV, Sih A, Pruitt JN (2014) The keystone individual concept: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Anim Behav 89:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parrish JK, Edelstein-Keshet L (1999) Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. Science 284:99–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pinter-Wollman N, Wollman R, Guetz A, Holmes S, Gordon DM (2011) The effect of individual variation on the structure and function of interaction networks in harvester ants. J R Soc Interface 8:1562–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinter-Wollman N, Keiser CN, Wollman R, Pruitt JN (2016) The effect of keystone individuals on collective outcomes can be mediated through interactions or behavioural persistence. A Nat 188:240–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pruitt JN, Keiser CN (2014) The personality types of key catalytic individuals shape colonies’ collective behavior and success. Anim Behav 93:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pruitt JN, Pinter-Wollman N (2015) The legacy effects of keystone individuals on collective behaviour scale to how long they remain within a group. Proc R Soc B 282:20151766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robson SK, Traniello JF (2002) Transient division of labor and behavioral specialization in the ant Formica schaufussi. Naturwissenschaften 89:128–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seifert B (1992) A taxonomic revision of the Palaearctic members of the ant subgenus Lasius s. str. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Abh Ber Naturkundemus Görlitz 66:1–67Google Scholar
  33. Sempo G, Depickère S, Detrain C (2006) How brood influences caste aggregation patterns in the dimorphic ant species Pheidole pallidula. Insectes Soc 53:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wada-Katsumata A, Yamaoka R, Aonuma H (2011) Social interactions influence dopamine and octopamine homeostasis in the brain of the ant Formica japonica. J Exp Biol 214:1707–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wearmouth VJ et al (2014) Scaling laws of ambush predator ‘waiting’ behaviour are tuned to a common ecology. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:1782.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and BioscienceWaseda University, TWInsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options