Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 152, Issue 2, pp 497–504 | Cite as

Ant colony tracking in the obligate army ant-following antbird Phaenostictus mcleannani

  • Johel Chaves-CamposEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

More than 100 species of tropical birds track army ants to feed on arthropods that flee from the ants. Some species are obligate ant-followers that obtain most of their food at ant swarms, but the mechanism used to track ant colonies remains poorly understood. Ant colonies are nomadic and do not raid every day. It has been hypothesized that (1) by keeping track of three ant colonies daily, each bird should find at least one ant swarm per day, and (2) the birds use the vocalizations of conspecifics as cues to find ant swarms. I followed radiotagged Ocellated Antbirds (Phaenostictus mcleannani) in Costa Rica, which are obligate army ant-following birds, to test both hypotheses and describe how they navigate to find army ant swarms. I found that the birds remained at a single ant swarm throughout the day if that swarm was found in the dominance area of the birds; otherwise, the birds visited several ant colonies. Birds travelled in an oriented manner among ant colonies, in cohesive groups that moved in single file. I recorded “following” events in which a focal bird travelled in a group to a nomadic ant colony that this bird did not check on the previous day; the focal bird travelled with birds that visited the colony on the previous day. Following was occasionally facilitated by vocalizations produced by birds immediately before leaving a swarm. I propose that individual Ocellated Antbirds take advantage of collective knowledge to find army ant swarms.

Keywords

Eciton burchellii Information transfer Navigation Network foraging Social foraging 

Zusammenfassung

Mehr als 100 tropische Vogelarten verfolgen Wanderameisen, um die vor ihnen fliehenden Arthropoden zu erbeuten. Einige dieser Vogelarten verfolgen Ameisenschwärme obligat und leben überwiegend hiervon, aber mit welchen Methoden sie die wandernden Ameisenvölker aufspüren, ist noch immer weitgehend unbekannt. Ameisenvölker leben nomadisch und gehen nicht jeden Tag auf Wanderschaft. Zwei aufgestellte Hypothesen besagen, dass (1) ein Vogel bei der täglichen Beobachtung dreier Ameisenvölker zumindest einen Ameisenschwarm pro Tag aufspüren sollte, und (2) die Vögel die Lautäußerungen von Artgenossen nutzen, um wandernde Völker zu finden. Ich bin in Costa Rica mit Minisendern ausgestatteten Halsband-Ameisenvögeln (Phaenostictus mcleannani) gefolgt, die obligat Ameisenschwärme verfolgen, um beide Hypothesen zu testen und zu beschreiben, wie die Vögel navigieren, um die Wanderameisen aufzuspüren. Ich fand heraus, dass die Vögel einen ganzen Tag lang ein und denselben Ameisenschwarm verfolgten, sofern sich dieser innerhalb des Reviers der Vögel aufhielt. War das nicht der Fall, besuchten die Vögel mehrere Ameisenvölker. Die Vögel bewegten sich zwischen diesen Ameisenvölkern ganz offensichtlich orientiert und in zusammenhängenden Gruppen. Ich konnte „Nachfolge-Ereignisse“ aufzeichnen, in denen der beobachtete Vogel innerhalb seiner Gruppe zu einem Ameisenvolk flog, das er am vorherigen Tag nicht besucht hatte; seine Gruppe jedoch hatte dieses Ameisenvolk am Tag zuvor aufgesucht. "Nachfolge-Ereignisse" wurden vereinzelt von Vögeln durch Vokalizationen verursacht, kurz bevor diese den Schwarm verlassen haben. Als Erklärung schlage ich vor, dass einzelne Halsband-Ameisenvögel Erfahrungen und Wissen der ganzen Gruppe nutzen, um wandernde Ameisenvölker aufzuspüren.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank K.N. Rabenold, P.M. Waser, J.R. Lucas, J.A. DeWoody, A. Kumar, G.A. Sonerud, D.W. Mock, the Rabenold Lab, Tracy Faustermann and anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. I am also grateful to A.M. Class, Y. Araya-Ajoy, C.A. Lizana-Moreno, and S.K. Willson, for their help/advice in the field. Thanks to P.A. Zollner for his advice on movement analysis and D. McClearn, the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS), and the Costa Rican government for permission to conduct this project. This project was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (DDIG 0608231), Purdue Research Foundation, Department of Biological Sciences at Purdue University (special thanks to Richard J. Kuhn), American Ornithologists’ Union, Cooper Ornithological Society, Sigma Xi Society, OTS. The experiments comply with the current laws of Costa Rica.

References

  1. Caldwell IR, Nams VO (2006) A compass without a map: tortuosity and orientation of eastern painted turtles (Chrysemys picta picta) released in unfamiliar territory. Can J Zool 84:1129–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaves-Campos J (2003) Localization of army-ant swarms by ant-following birds on the Caribbean slope of Costa Rica: following the vocalization of antbirds to find the swarms. Ornitol Neotrop 14:289–294Google Scholar
  3. Chaves-Campos J (2005) Bare-necked umbrellabird (Cephalopterus glabricollis) foraging at an unusually large assemblage of army ant-following birds. Wilson Bull 117:418–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaves-Campos J, DeWoody JA (2008) The spatial distribution of avian relatives: do obligate army-ant-following birds roost and feed near family members? Mol Ecol 17:2963–2974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaves-Campos J, Araya-Ajoy Y, Lizana-Moreno CA, Rabenold KN (2009) The effect of local dominance and reciprocal tolerance on feeding aggregations of ocellated antbirds. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:3995–4001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franks NR, Fletcher CR (1983) Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and migration: Eciton burchelli on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jenness J (2004) Weighted mean of points (weightmean.Avx) extension for arcview 3.X, v. 1.2c. Jenness Enterprises. http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/weighted_mean.htm
  8. Lieberman M, Lieberman D (1994) Patterns of density and dispersion of forest trees. In: McDade LA, Bawa KS, Hespenheide HA, Hartshorn GS (eds) La selva. Ecology and natural history of a neotropical rain forest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 106–119Google Scholar
  9. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  10. Nams VO (1996) The vfractal: a new estimator for fractal dimension of animal movement paths. Landsc Ecol 11:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nams VO (2006) Improving accuracy and precision in estimating fractal dimension of animal movement paths. Acta Biotheor 54:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Otis GW, Santana E, Crawford DL, Higgins ML (1986) The effect of foraging army ants on leaf-litter arthropods. Biotropica 18:56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peters MK, Likare S, Kraemer M (2008) Effects of habitat fragmentation and degradation on flocks of African ant-following birds. Ecol Appl 18:847–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rappole JH, Tipton AR (1991) New harness design for attachment of radio transmitters to small passerines. J Field Ornithol 62:335–337Google Scholar
  15. Rylands AB, Dacruz M, Ferrari SF (1989) An association between marmosets and army ants in Brazil. J Trop Ecol 5:113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sonerud GA, Smedshaug CA, Brathen O (2001) Ignorant hooded crows follow knowledgeable roost-mates to food: support for the information centre hypothesis. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:827–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swartz MB (2001) Bivouac checking, a novel behavior distinguishing obligate from opportunistic species of army-ant-following birds. Condor 103:629–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vidal-Riggs JM, Chaves-Campos J (2008) Method review: estimation of colony densities of the army ant Eciton burchellii in Costa Rica. Biotropica 40:259–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Willis EO (1967) The behavior of bicolored antbirds. Univ Calif Publ Zool 79:1–132Google Scholar
  20. Willis EO (1972) Behavior of plain-brown woodcreepers, Dendrocincla fuliginosa. Wilson Bull 84:377–420Google Scholar
  21. Willis EO (1973) The behavior of ocellated antbirds. Smithsonian Contrib Zool 144:1–57Google Scholar
  22. Willis EO, Oniki Y (1978) Birds and army ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 9:243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Willson SK (2004) Obligate army-ant-following birds: a study of ecology, spatial movement patterns, and behavior in Amazonian Peru. Ornithol Monogr 55:1–67Google Scholar
  24. Wrege PH, Wikelski M, Mandel JT, Rassweiler T, Couzin ID (2005) Antbirds parasitize foraging army ants. Ecology 86:555–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright J, Stone RE, Brown N (2003) Communal roosts as structured information centres in the raven, Corvus corax. J Anim Ecol 72(6):1003–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of New OrleansNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations