Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 873–880 | Cite as

Task Performance of Midden Workers of Atta sexdens rubropilosa Forel (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

  • Fabrícia G. Lacerda
  • Terezinha M. C. Della Lucia
  • Og DeSouza
  • Lucas M. de Souza
  • Danival J. de Souza


Material brought to midden piles of leaf-cutting ants is considered to be hazardous. It is therefore expected that midden workers should not re-enter the colony, to reduce pathogen transmission. Here, we examined whether the midden workers of Atta sexdens rubropilosa remain confined to the waste compartment and, if not, whether they could perform many different behaviors in the absence of specialized nestmates. Eleven subcolonies received either midden workers or non-midden workers in addition to pupae and 50 mL of fungus garden. Survival, fungal and brood care, foraging and waste manipulation were observed daily until subcolonies death. Subcolonies maintained by midden workers died earlier: average survival times were 13.92 and 22.66 days for midden and non-midden workers, respectively. Midden workers cared for the brood and foraged as non-midden workers did but they were not as efficient in caring for the garden. Activities related to waste manipulation were more frequently performed by midden workers. These results show that midden workers are not a behaviorally rigid caste and retain many labor capabilities being able to leave the waste compartment and perform internal activities in the absence of specialized internal workers.


Task performance leaf-cutting ants waste management division of labor 



Thanks to Prof. Dr Ricardo Della Lucia for a critical reading of this manuscript and to Karina Amaral for helping with worker measurement. We are also thankful to CNPq for the scholarships, especially for the grant 474819/2006-0.


  1. Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg JL (1998) Fixed response thresholds and the regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Bull Math Biol 60:753–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bot ANM, Currie CR, Hart AG, Boomsma JJ (2001) Waste management in leaf-cutting ants. Ethol Ecol Evol 13:225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical Computing: An introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Gordon DM (1989) Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants. Anim Behav 38:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gordon DM (1996) The organization of work in social insect colonies. Nature 380:121–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hart AG, Ratnieks FLW (2001) Task partitioning, division of labour and nest compartmentalization collectively isolate hazardous waste in the leaf-cutting ant Atta cephalotes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hart AG, Ratnieks FLW (2002) Waste management in the leaf-cutting ant Atta colombica. Behav Ecol 13:224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jeanne RL (1986) The evolution of the organization of work in social insects. Monit Zool Ital 20:119–134Google Scholar
  10. Lacerda FG, Della Lucia TMC, Lima E, Campos LAO, Pereira OL (2006) Waste management by workers of Atta sexdens rubropilosa (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in colonies supplied with different substrates. Sociobiology 48:165–173Google Scholar
  11. Lenoir A (1979a) Le comportement alimentaire et la division du travail chez la fourmi Lasius niger (L.). Bull. Biol. France et Belg 113:79–314Google Scholar
  12. Lenoir A (1979b) Feeding behaviour in young societies of the ant Tapinoma erraticum L.: trophallaxis and polyethism. Insect Soc 26:19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lenoir A (1987) Factors determining polyethism in social insects. In: Pasteels JM, Deneubourg JL (eds) From individual to collective behavior in social insects, les Treilles Workshop. Birkhauser, Basel, pp 219–240Google Scholar
  14. Mueller UG, Gerardo NM, Aanen DK, Six DL, Schultz TR (2005) The evolution of agriculture in insects. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 36:563–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. Porter SD, Jorgensen CD (1981) Foragers of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex owyheei: a disposable caste? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. R Development Core Team (2006) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  18. Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of dvision of labor in insect societies. Ann Rev Entomol 37:637–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sendova-Franks A, Franks NR (1993) Task allocation in ant colonies within variable environments (A study of temporal polyethism, experimental). Bull Math Biol 55:75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Therneau TM (1999) A package for survival analysis in S. (The survival package is available in the CRAN library:
  21. Waddington SJ, Hughes WOH (2010) Waste management in the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex echinatior: the role of worker size, age and plasticity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weir JS (1958a) Polyethism in workers of the ant Myrmica. I Insect Soc 5:97–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weir JS (1958b) Polyethism in workers of the ant Myrmica. II Insect Soc 5:315–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson EO (1980) Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta). I. The overall pattern in Atta sexdens. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson EO (1983) Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta) IV. Colony ontogeny of A. cephalotes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrícia G. Lacerda
    • 1
    • 3
  • Terezinha M. C. Della Lucia
    • 1
  • Og DeSouza
    • 1
    • 4
  • Lucas M. de Souza
    • 1
    • 5
  • Danival J. de Souza
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia AnimalUniversidade Federal de ViçosaViçosaBrazil
  2. 2.Fundação Universidade Federal do TocantinsCampus Universitário de GurupiGurupiBrazil
  3. 3.Departamento de Biologia, Campus de AlegreUniversidade Federal do Espírito SantoAlegreBrazil
  4. 4.Departamento de EntomologiaUniversidade Federal de ViçosaViçosaBrazil
  5. 5.Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Laboratório de Ecologia e BiossegurançaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations