Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 301–314 | Cite as

Foraging and spatiotemporal territories in the honey ant Myrmecocystus mimicus wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

  • Bert Hölldobler


The honey ant Myrmecocystus mimicus is a scavenger, forages extensively on termites, collects floral nectar, and tends homoptera. Individual foragers of M. mimicus usually disperse in all directions when leaving the nest, but there are also groups of foragers that tend to swarm out of the nest primarily in one direction. Such massive departues are usually at irregular intervals, which may last several hours. The results of field and laboratory experiments suggest that these swarms of foragers are organized by a group recruitment process, during which recruiting scout ants lay chemical orientation trails with hindgut contents and simultaneously stimulate nestmates with a motor display and secretions from the poison gland. Usually these columns travel considerable distances (4–48 m) away from the nest, frequently interfering with the foraging activity of conspecific neighboring colonies.

To prevent a neighboring colony from access to temporal food sources or to defend spatiotemporal borders, opposing colonies engage in elaborate display tournaments. Although hundreds of ants are often involved during these tournaments almost no physical fights occur. Instead, individual ants confront each other in highly sterotyped aggressive displays, during which they walk on stilt legs while raising the gaster and head. Some of the ants even seem to inflate their gasters so that the tergites are raised and the whole gaster appears to be larger. In addition, ants involved in tournament activities are on average larger than foragers.

The dynamics of the tournament interactions were observed in several colonies over several weeks-mapping each day the locations of the tournaments, the major directions of worker routes away from the nest, and recording the general foraging activities of the colonies. The results indicate that a kind of dominance order can occur among neighboring colonies. On the other hand, often no aggressive interactions among neighboring colonies can be observed, even though the colonies are actively foraging. In those cases the masses of foragers of each colony depart in one major direction that does not bring them into conflict with the masses of foragers of a neighboring colony. This stability, however, can be disturbed by offering a new rich food source to be exploited by two neighboring colonies. This invariably leads to tournament interactions.

When a colony is considerably stronger than the other, i.e., with a much larger worker force, the tournaments end quickly and the weaker colony is raided. The foreign workers invade the nest, the queen of the resident colony is killed or dirven off, while the larvae, pupae, callow workers, and honey pot workers are carried or dragged to the nest of the raiders. From these and other observations we conclude that young M. mimicus queens are unlikely to succeed in founding a colony within approximately 3 m of a mature M. mimicus colony because they are discovered and killed, or driven off by workers of the resident colony. Within approximately 3–15 m queens are more likely to start colonies, but these incipient groups run a high risk of being raided and exterminated by the mature colony.

Although populations of M. mimicus and M. depilis tend to replace each other, there are areas where both species overlap marginally. Foraging areas and foraging habitats of both species also overlap broadly, but we never observed tournament interactions between M. mimicus and M. depilis.

The adaptive significance of the spatiotemporal territories in M. mimicus is discussed.


Floral Nectar Major Direction Aggressive Display Poison Gland Mature Colony 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown JL (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 6:160–169Google Scholar
  2. Brown JL, Orians GH (1970) Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:239–262Google Scholar
  3. Cazier MA, Mortenson MA (1965) Bionomical observations on myrmecophilous beetles of the genus Cremastocheilus. J Kans Entomol Soc 38:19–44Google Scholar
  4. Cazier MA, Statham M (1962) The behavior and habits of the myrmecophilous scarab Cremastocheilus stathamae Cazier with notes on other species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). JNY Entomol Soc 70:125–149Google Scholar
  5. Chew RW (1977) Some ecological characteristics of the ants of a desert-shrub community in southeastern Arizona. Am Midl Nat 98:33–49Google Scholar
  6. Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35:445–453Google Scholar
  7. Croighton WS (1956) Notes on Myrmecocystus lugubris Wheeler and its synonym, Myrmecocystus yuma Wheeler. Am Mus Novit 1807:1–4Google Scholar
  8. Duncan-Weatherley AH (1953) Some aspects of the biology of the Iridomyrmex detectus (Smith). Aust J Zool 1:178–192Google Scholar
  9. Ettershank G, Ettershank JA (in press) Ritualized fighting in the meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus (Sm) (Hymenoptera-Formicidae). J Aust Entomol Soc 20Google Scholar
  10. Greenslade PJM (1975a) Dispersion and history of a population of the meat anti Irdomyrmex purpureus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Aust J Zool 23:495–510Google Scholar
  11. Greenslade PJM (1975b) Short-term change in a population of the meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Aust J Zool 23:511–522Google Scholar
  12. Höldobler B (1976a) Tournaments and slavery in a desert ant Science 192:912–914Google Scholar
  13. Höldobler B (1976b) Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav Ecol Socibiol 1:3–44Google Scholar
  14. Hölldobler B (1978) Ethological aspects of chemical communication in ants. Adv Study Behav 8:75–115Google Scholar
  15. Hölldobler B (1979) Territories of the African weaver ant (Oecophylla longinoda [Latreille]): A field study. Z Tierpsychol 51:201–213Google Scholar
  16. Hölldobler B, Lumsden Ch J (1980) Territorial strategies in ants. Science 210:732–739Google Scholar
  17. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1978) The multiple recruitment system of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:19–60Google Scholar
  18. Hölldobler B, Stantön RC, Markl H (1978) Recruitment and foodretrieving behavior in Novomessor (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). I. Chemical signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 4:163–181Google Scholar
  19. Kay CAR, Whitford WG (1978) Critical thermal limits of desert honey ants: possible ecological implications. Physiol Zool 51:206–213Google Scholar
  20. Leonard P (1911) The honey ants of Point Loma, California. Trans San Diego Soc Nat Hist 1:85–113Google Scholar
  21. Levings SC, Traniello J (in press) Nest dispersion patterns in ant communities. PsycheGoogle Scholar
  22. Mabelis AA (1979) Wood ant wars. Neth J Zool 29:451–620Google Scholar
  23. Markl H, Hölldobler B (1978) Recruitment and food-retrieving behavior in Novomessor (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). II. Vibrational signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 4:183–216Google Scholar
  24. McCook HC (1882) The honey ants of the garden of the gods, and the occident ant of the western plains. Lippincott, Philadelphia p 188Google Scholar
  25. Schumacher A, Whitford W (1976) Spatial and temporal variation in Chihuahuan desert ant faunas. Southwest Nat 21:1–8Google Scholar
  26. Snelling RR (1976) A revision of the honey ants, genus Myrmecocystus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Cty Sci Bull 24:163Google Scholar
  27. Talbot M (1943) Population studies of the ant Prenolepis imparis. Ecology 24:31–44Google Scholar
  28. Wheeler WM (1908) Honey ants, with a revision of the American Myrmecocysti. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 24:345–397Google Scholar
  29. Wheeler WM (1913) Additions to our knowledge of the ants of the genus Myrmecocystus Wesmael. Psyche 19:172–181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bert Hölldobler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, MCZ LaboratoriesHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations