Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 367–369 | Cite as

Morphological differences between extranidal and intranidal workers in the ant Temnothorax rugatulus, but no effect of body size on foraging distance

  • J. N. Westling
  • K. Harrington
  • S. Bengston
  • A. Dornhaus
Research Article

Abstract

Most ant genera are thought to have monomorphic workers, indicating perhaps a high degree of flexibility in task allocation, and the well-studied genus Temnothorax is an example of this. However, considerable size variation may exist between individuals. In addition, though workers can show flexible behavior, it has been shown that individuals may consistently differ in their task profiles. Here we test whether body size variation among workers affects foraging behavior. Two main hypotheses were tested: first, whether larger ants forage at greater distance from the nest, and second, whether larger individuals show a higher propensity to work outside of the nest. Our results showed that ant body size does not significantly affect foraging distance. However, larger ants were more likely to be found outside the nest. Though Temnothorax ants are a common model system, this is the first study demonstrating task allocation based on body size, which is fixed in adults. Our study suggests that particularly small species may have to be examined carefully for body size variation before concluding that body size is uniform and therefore irrelevant for task allocation.

Keywords

Task allocation Foraging Size variation Temnothorax Behavioral castes 

References

  1. Bengston S.E. and Dornhaus A. 2013. Colony size does not predict foraging distance in the ant Temnothorax rugatulus: a puzzle for standard scaling models. Insect. Soc. 60: 93–96Google Scholar
  2. Brooks J.L. and Dodson S.I. 1965. Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150: 28–35Google Scholar
  3. Couvillon M.J., Jandt J.J., Duong N. and Dornhaus A. 2010. Ontogeny of worker body size distribution in bumblebee (Bombus impatiens) colonies. Ecol. Entomol. 35: 424–435Google Scholar
  4. Dornhaus A. 2008. Specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant. Plos Biol. 6: 2368–2375Google Scholar
  5. Greenleaf S.S., Williams N.M., Winfree R. and Kremen C. 2007. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153: 589–596Google Scholar
  6. Fjerdingstad E.J. and Crozier R.H. 2006. The evolution of worker caste diversity in social insects. Am. Nat. 167: 390–400Google Scholar
  7. Hassrick J.L., Crocker D.E. and Costa D.P. 2013. Effects of maternal age and mass on foraging behavior and foraging success in the northern elephant seal. Funct. Ecol. 27: 1055–1063Google Scholar
  8. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  9. Keiser C.N., Jones D.K., Modlmeier A.P. and Pruitt J.N. 2014. Exploring the effects of individual traits and within-colony variation on task differentiation and collective behavior in a desert social spider. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68: 839–850Google Scholar
  10. Jandt J. and Dornhaus A. 2009. Spatial organization and division of labor in the bumble bee, Bombus impatiens. Anim. Behav. 77: 641–651Google Scholar
  11. McNab B.K. 1963. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am. Nat. 97: 133–140Google Scholar
  12. Modlmeier A.P., Pamminger T., Foitzik S. and Scharf I. 2012. Cold resistance depends on acclimatization and behavioral caste in a temperate ant. Naturwissenschaften 99: 811–819Google Scholar
  13. Ness J.H., Bronstein J.L., Andersen A.N. and Holland J.N. 2004. Ant body size predicts dispersal distance of ant-adapted seeds: implications of small-ant invasions. Ecology 85: 1244–1250Google Scholar
  14. Okada Y., Plateaux L. and Peeters C. 2013. Morphological variability of intercastes in the ant Temnothorax nylanderi: pattern of trait expression and modularity. Insect. Soc. 60: 319–328Google Scholar
  15. Pie M.R. and Traniello F.A. 2007. Morphological evolution in a hyperdiverse clade: the ant genus Pheidole. J. Zool. 271: 99–109Google Scholar
  16. Pinter-Wollman N., Hubler J., Holley J.A., Franks N.R. and Dornhaus A. 2012. How is activity distributed among and within tasks in Temnothorax ants. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66: 1407–1420Google Scholar
  17. Roland J. and Taylor P.D. 1997. Insect parasitoid respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386: 710–713Google Scholar
  18. Robinson E.J.H., Feinerman O. and Franks N.R. 2009. Flexible task allocation and the organization of works in ants. Proc. R. Soc. B. 276: 4373–4380Google Scholar
  19. Rueppell O. and Kirkma R.W. 2005. Extraordinary starvation resistance in Temnothorax rugatulus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) colonies: Demography and adaptive behavior. Insect. Soc. 52: 282–290Google Scholar
  20. Schoener T. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2: 369–404Google Scholar
  21. Shutler D. and Mullie A. 1991. Size-related foraging behavior of the leaf-cutting ant Atta colombica. Can. J. Zool. 69:1530–1533Google Scholar
  22. Spaethe J. and Weidenmüller A. 2002. Size variation and forging rate in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Insect. Soc. 49: 142–146Google Scholar
  23. Tschinkel W.R., Mikheyev A.S. and Storz S.R. 2003. Allometry of workers of the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. J. Insect. Sci. 3: 3–11Google Scholar
  24. Tschinkel W.R. 2013. The morphometry of Solenopsis fire ants. PloS one. 8: e79559Google Scholar
  25. Wetterer J.K. 1999. The ecology and evolution of worker size-distribution in leaf-cutting ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 34: 119–144Google Scholar
  26. Wilson E.O. 1980a. Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta): I. The overall pattern in A. sexdens. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7:143–146Google Scholar
  27. Wilson E.O. 1980b. Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta): II. The ergonomic optimization of leaf cutting. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7: 157–165Google Scholar
  28. Wilson E.O. 1984. The relationship between caste ratios and division of labor in the ant genus Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 16: 89–98Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. N. Westling
    • 1
  • K. Harrington
    • 1
  • S. Bengston
    • 1
  • A. Dornhaus
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations