Researches on Population Ecology

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 45–51 | Cite as

How an ant decides to prey on or to attend aphids

  • Hiroshi Sakata
Original Paper


The following results on the behavior decision making of the antLasius niger toward two species of myrmecophilous aphidsLachnus tropicalis andMyzocallis kuricola on chestnut trees have been found. (1) An individual worker consistently attended only one aphid species, even if her nestmates attended other aphid species on the same tree. (2) The ants preyed less on the aphid species which they attended than on other myrmecophilous aphid species. (3) The ants preyed less on the aphids which had been attended by their nestmates, even if both aphids were the same species. (4) The ants preyed less on aphids which had provided honeydew to their nestmates. (5) The increased aphid density per ant led to an increase in the rate of predation on the introduced aphids by the ants. These results suggest that each worker ofL. niger chooses aphid species to attend from her experience. In addition, the workers can recognize whether an aphid has been attended by their nestmates and whether an aphid has given their nestmates honeydew. Through these processes, each worker decides to attend or to prey on the aphid. As a result, they may realize efficient collective foraging dependent on aphid density per worker.

Key words

ant Lasius niger aphid attend prey decision of behavior 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beckers, R., J. L. Deneubourg and S. Goss (1992) Trail laying behavior during food recruitment in the antLasius niger (L.).Insect. Soc. 39: 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cherix, D. (1987) Relation between diet and polyethism in Formica colonies. pp. 93–115.In J. M. Pasteels and J. L. Deneubourg (eds.)From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Basel, Brikhause.Google Scholar
  3. Edinger, B. B. (1985) Conditional mutualism in tree aphid-tending ants.Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 66: 168.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, R. L. (1951) Change in the foraging behavior of the garden andLasius niger L.Entomologist's Monthly Mag. 87: 280.Google Scholar
  5. Hölldobler, B. and E. O. Wilson (1990)The ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Pontin, A. J. (1958) Preliminary note on the eating of aphids by ants of the genusLasius.Entomologist's Monthly Mag. 94: 9–11.Google Scholar
  7. Pontin, A. J. (1978) The numbers and distribution of subterranean aphids and their exploitation by the antLasius flavus Fabr.Ecol. Entomol. 3: 203–207.Google Scholar
  8. Rosengren, R. and L. Sundström (1991) The interaction between red wood ants,Cinara aphids, and pines. A ghost of mutualism past? pp. 80–91.In C. R. Huxley and D. F. Cutler (eds.)Ant-plant interactions. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. SAS Institute Inc. (1985)SAS user's guide: statistics, version 5 edition. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  10. Skinner, G. J. and J. B. Whittaker (1981) An experimental investigation of inter-relationships between the wood-ant and some tree-canopy herbivores.J. Anim. Ecol. 50: 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sudd, J. H. (1987) Individual behavior and mixed diet strategy in ants. pp. 81–92.In J. M. Pasteels and J. L. Deneubourg (eds.)From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Brikhauser, Basel.Google Scholar
  12. Way, M. J. (1954) Studies on the association of the antOecophylla Longinoda with the scale insectSaissetia zanzibarensis.Bull. Entomol. Res. 45: 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Way, M. J. (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew producting Homoptera.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 8: 307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Population Ecology 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Sakata
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Entomology, Faculty of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations