Abstract
Social insect colonies are models for complex systems with sophisticated, efficient, and robust allocation of workers to necessary tasks. Despite this, it is commonly reported that many workers appear inactive. Could this be an artifact resulting from the simplified laboratory conditions in most studies? Here, we test whether the time allocated to different behavioral states differs between field and laboratory colonies of Temnothorax rugatulus ants. Our results show no difference in colony time budgets between laboratory and field observations for any of the observed behaviors, including ‘inactivity’. This suggests that, on the timescale of a few months, laboratory conditions do not impact task allocation at the colony level. We thus provide support for a previously untested assumption of laboratory studies on division of labor in ants. High levels of inactivity, common in social insects, thus appear to not be a laboratory artifact, but rather a naturally occurring trait.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Becker G.S. and Murphy K.M. 1992. The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. Quart. J. Econ. 107: 1137-1160
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: 93-96
Calisi R.M. and Bentley G.E. 2009. Lab and field experiments: Are they the same animal? Hormones and Behavior 56: 1-10
Carlstead K. 2010. Effects of captivity on the behavior of wild mammals. In: Wild Mammals in Captivity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Cole B.J. 1986. The social behavior of Leptothorax allardycei (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): time budgets and the evolution of worker reproduction. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18: 165-173
Durkheim E. 1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY
Franks N.R., Mallon E.B., Bray H.E., Hamilton M.J. and Mischler T.C. 2003. Strategies for choosing between alternatives with different attributes: exemplified by house-hunting ants. Anim. Behav. 65: 215-223
Gadagkar R. and Joshi N.V. 1984. Social organisation in the Indian wasp Ropalidia cyathiformis (Fab.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Z. Tierpsychol. 64: 15-32
Garland Jr T., Else P.L., Hulbert A.J. and Tap P. 1987. Effects of endurance training and captivity on activity metabolism of lizards. Am. J. Physiol. - Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 252: R450-R456
Gerkey B.P. and Matarić M.J. 2004. A formal analysis and taxonomy of task allocation in multi-robot systems. Int. J. Robotics Res. 23: 939-954
Gordon D.M. 1983. Daily rhythms in social activities of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology 90: 413-423
Gordon D.M. 2002. The regulation of foraging activity in red harvester ant colonies. Am. Nat. 159: 509-518
Gordon D.M., Chu J., Lillie A., Tissot M. and Pinter N. 2005. Variation in the transition from inside to outside work in the red harvester ant Pogonomyrmex barbatus. Insect. Soc. 52: 212-217
Herbers J.M. and Cunningham M. 1983. Social organization in Leptothorax longispinosus Mayr. Anim. Behav. 31: 759-771
Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Jandt J., Robins N., Moore R. and Dornhaus A. 2012. Individual bumblebees vary in response to disturbance: a test of the defensive reserve hypothesis. Insect. Soc. 59: 313-321
Johnson S. 2012. Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY
Krebs J.R. and Davies N.B. 2009. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NY
Lindauer M. 1952. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Arbeitsteilung im Bienenstaat. J. Comp. Physiol. A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology 34: 299-345
Markow T.A. 1988. Reproductive behavior of Drosophila melanogaster and D. nigrospiracula in the field and in the laboratory. J. Comp. Psychol. 102: 169
McFarland D. 1989. Problems of Animal Behaviour. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, Essex; New York
Moodie E.M. and Chamove A.S. 2005. Brief threatening events beneficial for captive tamarins? Zoo Biology 9: 275-286
Pinter-Wollman N., Hubler J., Holley J.-A., Franks N. and Dornhaus A. 2012. How is activity distributed among and within tasks in Temnothorax ants? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66: 1407-1420
Rosengaus R.B. and Traniello J.F.A. 1993. Temporal polyethism in incipient colonies of the primitive termite Zootermopsis angusticollis: A single multiage caste. J. Insect Behav. 6: 237-252
Schmid-Hempel P. 1990. Reproductive competition and the evolution of work load in social insects. Am. Nat. 501-526
Wilson E.O. 1983. Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 47-54
Zhang J. and Chen G. 2011. The influence of logistics development on manufacturing division. In: Artificial Intelligence, Management Science and Electronic Commerce (AIMSEC), 2011 2nd International Conference, pp 791-794
Acknowledgments
We thank Alex Downs, Andrew Scott, Mary Levandowski, Matthew Velazquez, Neil Hillis, and Nicole Fischer for their help with data collection and ant maintenance. We also thank the entire Dornhaus lab for their ongoing feedback. Research supported through the GIDP-EIS and EEB Department at University of Arizona, as well as NSF Grants no. IOS-1045239, IOS-0841756, and DBI-1262292 (to A.D.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Charbonneau, D., Hillis, N. & Dornhaus, A. ‘Lazy’ in nature: ant colony time budgets show high ‘inactivity’ in the field as well as in the lab. Insect. Soc. 62, 31–35 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-014-0370-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-014-0370-6