Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 325–334 | Cite as

Spatial movement optimization in Amazonian Eciton burchellii army ants

RESEARCH ARTICLE (C.W. RETTENMEYER MEMORIAL PAPER)

Abstract

Foraging army ants face a problem general to many animals—how best to confront resource depletion and environmental heterogeneity. Army ants have presumably evolved a nomadic lifestyle as a way to minimize re-exploitation of previously foraged areas. However, this solution creates a challenge for an army ant colony: foraging by this colony and others creates a shifting landscape of food resources, where colonies should theoretically avoid their own previous foraging paths as well as those of other colonies. Here, we examine how colonies exploit this resource mosaic, using some of the optimality arguments first proposed and tested by Franks and Fletcher (1983), but with much larger data sets in a new location in SW Amazonia. Our data supported Franks and Fletcher’s (1983) model for systematic avoidance of raided areas during the statary phase, as well as a hypothesis of distance optimization between successive statary bivouacs. We also test and find significant evidence that foraging raids turn in opposite directions from the previous day’s directional angles more frequently than what would be expected if turning angles were distributed at random, which acts to move a colony away from recently exploited areas. This implies that colonies follow a straighter line path during the nomadic phase as opposed to a curved one, which acts to maximize distance between statary bivouacs. In addition to intra-colony movement optimization, we examine evidence for inter-colony avoidance from more than 330 colony emigrations and suggest that colony-specific pheromones are not necessarily repulsive to other colonies. Lastly, we compare our results with those of similar studies carried out at Barro Colorado Island (BCI), Panama. Despite a higher density of army ants in the SW Amazon region, colonies spend less time emigrating than their counterparts at BCI, which suggests a higher prey density in SW Amazonia.

Keywords

Army ants Eciton burchellii Tropical rainforest Cocha Cashu Optimal foraging 

References

  1. Akre R.D. and Rettenmeyer C.W. 1966. Behavior of Staphylinidae associated with army ants (Formicidae: Ecitonini). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 39: 745-782Google Scholar
  2. Berghoff S.M., Wurst E., Ebermann E., Sendova-Franks A.B., Rettenmeyer C.W. and Franks N.R. 2009. Symbionts of societies that fission: mites as guests or parasites of army ants. Ecol. Entomol. 34: 684-695Google Scholar
  3. Blum M.S. and Portocarrero C.A. 1964. Chemical releasers of social behavior. IV. The hindgut as the source of the odor trail pheromone in the neotropical army ant genus Eciton. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 57: 793-794Google Scholar
  4. Boswell G.P., Britton N.F. and Franks N.R. 1998. Habitat fragmentation, percolation theory and the conservation of a keystone species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 26: 1921-1925Google Scholar
  5. Boswell G.P., Franks N.R. and Britton N.F. 2000. Habitat fragmentation and swarm raiding army ants. In: Behavior and Conservation (Gosling L.M. and Sutherland W.J., Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp 141-158Google Scholar
  6. Bradley J.V. 1968. Distribution-free Statistical Tests. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 450 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Britton N.F., Partridge L.W. and Franks N.R. 1996. A mathematical model for the population dynamics of army ants. Bull. Math. Biol. 58: 471-492Google Scholar
  8. Condit R. 1998. Ecological implications of changes in drought patterns: Shifts in forest composition in Panama. Climatic Change 39: 413-427Google Scholar
  9. Condit R., Hubbell S.P. and Foster R.B. 1996. Changes in tree species abundance in a neotropical forest: Impact of climate change. J. Trop. Ecol. 12: 231-256Google Scholar
  10. Couzin I.D. and Franks N.R. 2003. Self-organized lane formation and optimised traffic flow in army ants. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270: 139-146Google Scholar
  11. Emmons L.H. and Feer F. 1990. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 281 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Franks N.R. 1982a. A new method for censusing animal populations: The number of Eciton burchellii army ant colonies on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Oecologia 52: 266-268Google Scholar
  13. Franks N.R. 1982b. Ecology and population regulation in the army ant Eciton burchellii. In: The Ecology of a Tropical Forest (Leigh Jr. E.G., Rand A.S. and Windsor D.M., Eds), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. pp 389-395Google Scholar
  14. Franks N.R. and Bossert W.H. 1983. The influence of swarm raiding army ants on the patchiness and diversity of a tropical leaf litter ant community. In: Tropical Rain Forest: Ecology and Management (Sutton S.L., Whitmore T.C. and Chadwick A.C., Eds). Blackwell, Oxford. pp 151-163Google Scholar
  15. Franks N.R. and Fletcher C.R. 1983. Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and migration: Eciton burchellii on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12: 261-270Google Scholar
  16. Franks N.R., Gomez N., Goss S. and Deneubourg J.L. 1991. The blind leading the blind in army ant raid patterns: testing a model of self-organization. J. Insect Behav. 4: 583-607Google Scholar
  17. Glanz W.E. 1982. The terrestrial mammal fauna of Barro Colorado Island: censuses and long-term changes. In: The Ecology of a Tropical Forest (Leigh Jr. E.G., Rand A.S. and Windsor D.M., Eds). Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington. pp 455-468Google Scholar
  18. Glanz W.E. 1990. Neotropical mammal densities: How unusual is the community on Barro Colorado Island, Panama? In: Four Neotropical Forests (Gentry A.H., Ed). Yale University Press, New Haven. pp 287-313Google Scholar
  19. Harper L.H. 1989. The persistence of ant-following birds in small Amazonian forest fragments. Acta Amazônica 19: 249-263Google Scholar
  20. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 731 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Hooge P.N. and Eichenlaub B. 1997. Animal movement extension to Arcview. Vers. 1.1. Alaska Science Center: Biological Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, U.S.AGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaspari M. and O’Donnell S. 2003. High rates of army ant raids in the Neotropics and implications for ant colony and community structure. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 933-939Google Scholar
  23. Leigh E.G. 1972. The golden section and spiral leaf arrangement. Conn. Acad. Sci. Trans. 44: 163-176Google Scholar
  24. Levings S.C. and Windsor D.M. 1982. Seasonal and annual variation in litter arthropod populations. In: The Ecology of a Tropical Forest (Leigh Jr. E.G., Rand A.S. and Windsor D.M., Eds). Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington. pp 355-387Google Scholar
  25. Levings S.C. and Windsor D.M. 1984. Litter moisture content as a determinant of litter arthropod distribution and abundance during the dry season on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Biotropica 16: 125-131Google Scholar
  26. O’Donnell S., Lattke J., Powell S. and Kaspari M. 2007. Army ants in four forests: geographic variation in raid rates and species composition. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 580-589Google Scholar
  27. Pearson K. and Blakeman J. 1906. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. XV. A mathematical theory of random migration. Drapers’ Company Research Memoirs: Biometric Series III. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  29. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1962. The behavior of millipedes found with neotropical army ants. J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 35: 377-384Google Scholar
  30. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1963a. Behavioral studies of army ants. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 44: 281-465Google Scholar
  31. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1963b. The behavior of Thysanura found with army ants. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 56: 170-174Google Scholar
  32. Richards L.A. and Windsor D.M. 2007. Seasonal variation of arthropod abundance in gaps and the understorey of a lowland moist forest in Panama. J. Trop. Ecol. 23:169-176Google Scholar
  33. Robinson W.D. 1999. Long-term changes in the avifauna of Barro Colorado Island, Panama, a tropical forest isolate. Conserv. Biol. 13: 85-97Google Scholar
  34. Robinson W.D. 2001. Changes in abundance of birds in a Neotropical forest fragment over 25 years: A review. Anim. Biodiv. Conserv. 24: 51-65Google Scholar
  35. Schöning C., Washington M.N. and Franks N.R. 2005. Temporal and spatial patterns in the emigrations of the army ant Dorylus (Anomma) molestus in the montane forest of Mt. Kenya. Ecol. Entomol. 30: 532-540Google Scholar
  36. Schneirla T.C. 1971. Army Ants: A Study in Social Organization. (Topoff H.R., Ed). W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 349 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Schneirla T.C. and Brown R.Z. 1950. Army-ant life and behavior under dry season conditions, 4: Further investigation of cyclic processes in behavioral and reproductive functions. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 95: 263-353Google Scholar
  38. Swartz M.B. 1997. Behavioral and population ecology of the army ant Eciton burchellii and ant-following birds. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  39. Willis E.O. 1967. The behavior of bicolored antbirds. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 79: 1-132Google Scholar
  40. Willis E.O. 1976. Seasonal changes in the invertebrate litter fauna on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Rev. Bras. Biol. 36: 643-657Google Scholar
  41. Willis E.O. 1974. Populations and local extinctions of birds on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ecol. Monogr. 44: 153-169Google Scholar
  42. Willson S.K. 2004. Obligate army-ant-following birds: A study of ecology, spatial movement patterns, and behavior in Amazonian Peru. Ornithol. Monogr. 55. 67 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Wrege P.H., Wikelski M., Mandel J.T., Rassweiler T. and Couzin I.D. 2005. Antbirds parasitize foraging army ants. Ecology 86: 555-559Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. K. Willson
    • 1
  • R. Sharp
    • 2
    • 4
  • I. P. Ramler
    • 2
  • A. Sen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologySt. Lawrence UniversityCantonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and StatisticsSt. Lawrence UniversityCantonUSA
  3. 3.Biology DepartmentPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.StanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations