Journal of Ethology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 43–53 | Cite as

Efficiency in the exploitation of patchy environments by the ponerine antPaltothyreus tarsatus: an ecological consequence of the flexibility of prey capture behavior

  • Alain Déjean
  • Jean-Paul Lachaud
  • Guy Beugnon
Article

Abstract

Paltothyreus tarsatus workers show an adaptive predatory strategy compatible with central place theory which predicts that single-prey loading is an extension of the optimal diet choice while multiple-prey loading behavior would correspond to the optimal use of patches. The insight learning involved in the quick modifications of predatory strategy enablesP. tarsatus to hunt all available prey in a great diversity of sizes and species. Nevertheless, this generalist predator strongly preferred termites and very large prey such as giant diplopods and crickets to other choices within its diet. In the hunting of these favorite prey, the recruitment of nestmates enhanced the efficiency of total predation, though the release of a chemical trail appeared to depend on the hunger-satiety balance of the colony. In addition to the hunger, the miscapture of prey also triggered the release of chemical trails. The strategy for capturing grouped termites was characterized by the loading of multiple prey at a single time, by a concentrated search in a restricted area and by an optional recruitment of nestmates. These behavioral characteristics of ponerine ants probably account for the flexibility of their predatory strategy for hunting aggregated small prey.

Keywords

Prey Capture Generalist Predator Patchy Environment Optimal Diet Place Theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agbogba, C. 1985 Quelques observations sur le comportement de chasse de la PonérineMesoponera caffraria Smith (Hymenoptera, Formicidæ).Actes Coll. Insectes Sociaux 2: 235–238.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, G. 1915 A monograph of the Formicidæ of South Africa. Part I (Ponerinæ, Dorylinæ).Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 14: 1–163.Google Scholar
  3. Caro, T.M. & P. bateson 1986 Organization and ontogeny of alternative tactics.Anim. Behav. 34: 1483–1499.Google Scholar
  4. Charnov, E.L. 1976 Optimal foraging: attack strategy of mantid.Am. Nat. 110: 141–151.Google Scholar
  5. Déjean, A. 1980 Le comportement de prédation deSerrastruma serrula Santschi (Formicidæ, Myrmicinæ). I. Capacité de détection des ouvrières, analyse des phases comportementales.Ann. Sci. Nat., Zool. (sér. 13) 2: 131–143.Google Scholar
  6. Déjean, A. 1985 Etude éco-éthologique de la prédation chez les fourmis du genreSmithistruma (Formicidæ-Myrmicinæ-Dacetini). III. La capture des proies chez.S. emarginata.Insectes Sociaux 32: 241–256.Google Scholar
  7. Déjean, A. 1986 Etude du comportement de prédation dans le genreStrumigenys (Formicidæ-Myrmicinæ).Insectes Sociaux 33: 388–405.Google Scholar
  8. Déjean, A. 1987 Effect of prey size on predatory behavior ofSerrastruma serrula (Hymenoptera: Formicidæ, Myrmicinæ).Sociobiology 13: 295–306.Google Scholar
  9. Déjean, A. 1988 Failure as an effective stimulus of a “reserve behavior” which allows the capture of alternative prey bySerrastruma serrula workers (Formicidæ-Myrmicinæ).Sociobiology 14: 325–339.Google Scholar
  10. Déjean, A. 1991 Le comportement prédateur dePachycondyla soror.Entomol. exp. appl. 58: 123–135.Google Scholar
  11. Déjean, A. & E. P. Bashingwa 1985. La prédation chezOdontomachus troglodytes Stanschi (Formicidæ-Ponerinæ).Insectes Sociaux 32: 23–42.Google Scholar
  12. Déjean, A., G. Beugnon, & J.-P. Lachaud 1993 Spatial components of foraging behavior in an African ponerine ant,Paltothyreus tarsatus. J. Insect Behav., in press.Google Scholar
  13. Déjean, A. & B. Corbara 1990 Predatory behavior of a neotropical arboricolous ant:Pachychondyla villosa (Formicidæ: Ponerinæ).Sociobiology 17: 271–286.Google Scholar
  14. Déjean, A., D. Masens, K. Kanika, M. Nsudi & R. Gunumina 1986 Les termites et les fourmis, animaux dominants de la faune du sol de plusieurs formations forestières et herbeuses du Zaïre.Actes Coll. Insectes Sociaux 3: 237–283.Google Scholar
  15. Gordon, D.M. 1989 Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants.Anim. Behav. 38: 194–203Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, D.M. 1991 Behavioral flexibility and the foraging ecology of seed-eating ants.Am. Nat. 138: 379–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hölldobler, B. 1976 Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants,Pogonomyrmex.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1: 3–44.Google Scholar
  18. Hölldobler, B. 1980 Canopy orientation: a new kind of orientation in ants.Science 210: 86–88.Google Scholar
  19. Hölldobler, B. 1984 Communication during foraging and nest-relocation in the African stink ant,Paltothyreus tarsatus Fabr. (Hymenoptera, Formicidæ, Ponerinæ).Z. Tierpsychol. 65: 40–52.Google Scholar
  20. Hölldobler, B. & E.O. Wilson 1990The Ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. Lessells, C.M. & D.W. Stephens 1983 Central place foraging: single-prey loaders again.Anim. Behav. 31: 238–243.Google Scholar
  22. Lévieux, J. 1966 Note préliminaire sur les colonnes de chasse deMegaponera foetens F. (Hyménoptère Formicidæ).Insectes Sociaux 13: 117–126.Google Scholar
  23. Lévieux, J. 1972 Le rôle des fourmis dans les réseaux trophiques d'une savane préforestière de Côte-d'Ivoire.Ann. Univ. Abidjan (sér. E)5: 143–240.Google Scholar
  24. Maschwitz, U., S. Steghaus-Kovac, R. Gaube & H. Hänel 1989 A South East Asia ponerine ant of the genusLeptogenys (Hym., Form.) with army ant habits.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24: 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orians, G.H. & N.E. Pearson 1979 On the theory of central place foraging. InAnalysis of Ecological System (D.J. Horn, G.R. Stairs and R.D. Mitchell, eds.), pp. 155–177. Omo State University Press. Colombus.Google Scholar
  26. Porter, S.D. & C.D. Jorgensen 1981 Foragers of the harvester ant,Pogonomyrmex owyheei: a disposable caste?Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robertson, P.S. 1971 Pheromones involved in aggressive behavior in the antMyrmecia gulosa.J. Insect Physiol. 17: 691–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schoener, T.W. 1979 Generality of the size-distance relation in models of optimal feeding.Am. Nat. 14: 902–914.Google Scholar
  29. Schwartz, D. 1984.Méthodes Statistiques à l'Usage des Médecins et des Biologistes. Flammarion Médecine Sciences, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. Thorpe, W.H. 1963Learning and Instincts in Animals. 2nd ed. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  31. Wheeler, W.M. 1922a Ants of the American Museum Congo Expedition, a contribution to the myrmecology of Africa. II. The ants collected by the American Museum Congo Expedition.Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 45: 39–269.Google Scholar
  32. Wheeler, W.M. 1922bidem.Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 45: 711–1004.Google Scholar
  33. Wheeler, W.M. 1936 Ecological relations of ponerine and other ants to termites.Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts & Sci. 71: 159–243.Google Scholar
  34. Wroughton, R.C. 1982 Our ants.J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 7: 3–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Déjean
    • 1
  • Jean-Paul Lachaud
    • 2
  • Guy Beugnon
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Zoologie (and URA-CNRS 667)Faculté des SciencesYaoundéCameroun
  2. 2.Centre de Recherche en Biologie du Comportement, URA-CNRS 664Université Paul-SabatierToulouse CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations