When groups of ants work together to carry large objects—called cooperative transport—they must form consensus on a travel direction. In many species, groups are unsuccessful at this decision, and deadlock. In other collective decisions, including nest-site selection in honeybees, individuals’ enthusiasm or recruitment intensity for a given option affects the selection process. A similar mechanism may be important during cooperative transport in ants and may account for coordination differences among species. Results from theoretical models suggest that individuals’ persistence—their reluctance to give up or change their preferred direction—may promote coordination. More persistent individuals formed more successful groups in a theoretical context. As an empirical test of this hypothesis, I examined cooperative transport in four ant species that differ substantially in their group-level coordination, from exceedingly coordinated to rarely successful. I focused on the beginning of transport, evaluating groups’ transitions from uncoordinated to successful. I measured two types of persistence at the individual level—total engagement effort and local engagement time—and I measured group coordination for each species. In one species, I also manipulated persistence by adding a force equivalent to infinitely persistent ants to the existing transport groups. Species with more persistent individuals succeeded more often and formed more coordinated transport groups, with more direct paths. Furthermore, adding two infinitely persistent ants to the existing groups seemed to moderately increase their path directness. These results support the hypothesis that high individual persistence promotes group coordination during cooperative transport, and this study informs the mechanisms of emergent coordination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Berman S, Lindsey Q, Sakar MS et al (2011) Experimental study and modeling of group retrieval in ants as an approach to collective transport in swarm robotic systems. Proc IEEE 99:1470–1481. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2111450
Buffin A, Pratt SC (2016) Cooperative transport by the ant Novomessor cockerelli. Insectes Soc. doi:10.1007/s00040-016-0486-y
Camazine S, Deneubourg J-L, Franks NR et al (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Cheng K, Schultheiss P, Schwarz S et al (2014) Beginnings of a synthetic approach to desert ant navigation. Behav Process 102:51–61. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.10.001
Czaczkes TJ, Ratnieks FLW (2013) Cooperative transport in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and elsewhere. Myrmecol News 18:1–11
Czaczkes TJ, Nouvellet P, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Cooperative food transport in the Neotropical ant, Pheidole oxyops. Insectes Soc 58:153–161. doi:10.1007/s00040-010-0130-1
Fewell JH (2015) Social Biomimicry: what do ants and bees tell us about organization in the natural world? J Bioecon 17:207–216. doi:10.1007/s10818-015-9207-2
Fonio E, Heyman Y, Boczkowski L et al (2016) A locally-blazed ant trail achieves efficient collective navigation despite limited information. eLife 5:e20185. doi:10.7554/eLife.20185
Francoeur A (1973) Révision taxonomique des espèces néarctiques du groupe fusca, genre Formica (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). Mem Soc Ent Québec 3:316
Gelblum A, Pinkoviezky I, Fonio E et al (2015) Ant groups optimally amplify the effect of transiently informed individuals. Nat Commun 6:7729. doi:10.1038/ncomms8729
Gregg RE (1963) The ants of Colorado. University of Colorado Press, Boulder
Mallon EB, Pratt SC, Franks NR (2001) Individual and collective decision-making during nest site selection by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:352–359
McCreery HF, Breed MD (2014) Cooperative transport in ants: a review of proximate mechanisms. Insectes Soc 61:99–110. doi:10.1007/s00040-013-0333-3
McCreery HF, Correll N, Breed MD, Flaxman S (2016a) Consensus or deadlock? Consequences of simple behavioral rules for coordination in group decisions. PLoS One 11:e0162768. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162768
McCreery HF, Dix ZA, Breed MD, Nagpal R (2016b) Collective strategy for obstacle navigation during cooperative transport by ants. J Exp Biol 219:3366–3375. doi:10.1242/jeb.143818
Moffett M (1992) Ant Foraging. Res Explor 8:220–231
Moffett MW (2010) Adventures among ants: a global safari with a cast of trillions, 1st edn. University of California Press, California
Niven JE (2012) How honeybees break a decision-making deadlock. Science 335:43–44. doi:10.1126/science.1216563
Pais D, Hogan PM, Schlegel T et al (2013) A mechanism for value-sensitive decision-making. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073216
Pratt SC, Sumpter DJT (2006) A tunable algorithm for collective decision-making. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:15906–15910. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604801103
Pratt SC, Mallon EB, Sumpter DJT, Franks NR (2002) Quorum sensing, recruitment, and collective decision-making during colony emigration by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:117–127. doi:10.1007/s00265-002-0487-x
Robinson EJH, Smith FD, Sullivan KME, Franks NR (2009) Do ants make direct comparisons? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:2635–2641. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0350
Seeley TD (2010) Honeybee democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Seeley TD, Visscher PK, Schlegel T et al (2012) Stop signals provide cross inhibition in collective decision-making by honeybee swarms. Science 335:108–111. doi:10.1126/science.1210361
Trager JC, MacGown JA, Trager MD (2007) Revision of the Nearctic endemic Formica pallidefulva group. Mem Am Entomol Inst 80:610–636
Visscher PK (2007) Group decision making in nest-site selection among social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 52:255–275. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151025
Wetterer JK (2008) Worldwide spread of the longhorn crazy ant, Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 11:137–149
Yamamoto A, Ishihara S, Ito F (2008) Fragmentation or transportation: mode of large-prey retrieval in arboreal and ground nesting ants. J Insect Behav 22:1–11. doi:10.1007/s10905-008-9126-3
I thank Mike Breed for discussing conceptual design and results, and for providing comments on this manuscript. I also thank Andrew Koller for help brainstorming experimental procedures, particularly regarding measuring the force ants pull with. Zach Dix extracted persistence data from videos and assisted with the fieldwork in Arizona, and Jenna Bilek helped with additional data extraction. I thank Tomer Czaczkes and Stephen Pratt for providing valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Dr. Pratt at ASU and John Adams at Biosphere 2 provided assistance and use of their facilities during fieldwork. I thank QDT and the writing coop for providing suggestions on the analyses and/or writing. This work was funded in part by the University of Colorado Graduate School, and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
McCreery, H.F. A comparative approach to cooperative transport in ants: individual persistence correlates with group coordination. Insect. Soc. 64, 535–547 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-017-0575-6
- Cooperative transport
- Collective decision
- Emergent behavior
- Collective behavior