Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 407–411 | Cite as

Graded recruitment in a ponerine ant

  • Michael D. Breed
  • Jennifer H. Fewell
  • Allen J. Moore
  • Kristina R. Williams
Article

Summary

(1) The giant tropical ant, Paraponera clavata, exhibits graded recruitment responses, depending on the type, quantity, and quality of a food source. More ants are initially recruited to a large prey or scavenge item than to a large quantity of sugar water. (2) Individual ants encountering prey items gauge the size and/or unwieldiness of the item, regardless of the weight, when determining whether to recruit. (3) The trail pheromone of this species is often used as an orientation device by individual ants, independent of recruitment of nestmates. (4) It is proposed that the foraging behavior of P. clavata represents one of the evolutionary transitions from the independent foraging activities of the primitive ants to the highly coordinated cooperative foraging activities of many “higher” ants.

Keywords

Sugar Food Source Prey Item Evolutionary Transition Large Prey 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Attygale AB, Morgan ED (1985) Ant trail pheromones. Adv Ins Physiol 18:1–30Google Scholar
  2. Breed MD, Bennett B (1985) Mass recruitment to nectar sources in Paraponera clavata: A field study. Insectes Soc 32:198–208Google Scholar
  3. Chadab R, Rettenmeyer CW (1975) Mass recruitment by army ants. Science 188:1124–1125Google Scholar
  4. Crawford DL, Rissing SW (1983) Regulation of recruitment by individual scouts in Formica oreas Insectes Soc 30:177–183Google Scholar
  5. Hangartner W (1969) Structure and variability of the individual odor trail in Solenopsis geminata. Z Vergl Physiol 62:111–120Google Scholar
  6. Haskins CP, Haskins EF (1950) Notes on the biology and social behavior of the archaic ponerine ants of the genera Myrmecia and Promyrmecia. Ann Entomol Soc Am 43:461–491Google Scholar
  7. Hölldobler B (1971) Recruitment behavior in Camponotus socius. Z Vergl Physiol 75:123–142Google Scholar
  8. Hölldobler B (1974) Communication by tandem running in the ant Camponotus sericeus. J Comp Physiol 90:105–127Google Scholar
  9. Hölldobler B (1976) Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:3–44Google Scholar
  10. Hölldobler B (1978) Ethological aspects of chemical communication in ants. Adv Study Behav 8:75–115Google Scholar
  11. Hölldobler B (1984) The evolution of insect communication. In: Lewis T (ed) Insect communication, Academic Press, New York, pp 349–377Google Scholar
  12. Hölldobler B, Stanton R, Markl H (1978) Recruitment and food-retrieving behavior in Novomessor. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 4:163–181Google Scholar
  13. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1970) Recruitment trails in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex badius. Psyche 77:385–399Google Scholar
  14. Janzen DH, Carroll CR (1983) Paraponera clavata. In: Janzen DH (ed) Costa Rican Natural History. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 752–753Google Scholar
  15. Jaffe K, Howse PE (1978) The mass recruitment system of the leaf cutting ant, Atta cephalotes. Anim Behav 27:930–939Google Scholar
  16. Jessen K, Maschwitz U (1985) Individual specific trails in the ant Pachycondyla tesserinoda. Naturwissenschaften 72:549–550Google Scholar
  17. Markl H, Hölldobler B (1978) Recruitment and food-retrieving behavior in Novomessor. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 4:183–216Google Scholar
  18. Michener CD (1974) The comparative social behavior of the bees. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  19. Möglich M, Hölldobler B (1975) Communication and orientation during foraging and emigration in the ant, Formica fusca. J Comp Physiol 101:275–288Google Scholar
  20. Oster G, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Taylor FJ (1978) Foraging behavior of ants: theoretical considerations. J Theor Biol 71:541–565Google Scholar
  22. Traniello JFA (1977) Recruitment behavior, orientation, and the organization of foraging in the Carpenter ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:61–79Google Scholar
  23. Wilson EO (1962) Chemical communication among workers of the fire ant, Solenopsis saevissima. Anim Behav 10:134–164Google Scholar
  24. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  25. Young AM, Hermann HR (1980) Notes on the foraging of the giant tropical ant, Paraponera clavata J Kansas Entomol Soc 53:32–55Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. Breed
    • 1
  • Jennifer H. Fewell
    • 1
  • Allen J. Moore
    • 1
  • Kristina R. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental, Population, and Organismic BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations