Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 119–127 | Cite as

The digging dynamics of ant tunnels: movement, encounters, and nest space

  • A. I. BruceEmail author
  • A. Pérez-Escudero
  • T. J. Czaczkes
  • M. Burd
Research Article


Underground ant nests are constructed by decentralised self-organisation wherein the ants respond to local stimuli and produce coordinated structures through globally regulated behaviours. One such regulation is the reduction in digging effort that occurs when available nest space has reached an adequate size. Tunnels have a distinct configuration relative to other nest elements and the processes regulating their excavation are poorly understood. We examined the relationship between digging effort and tunnel space by presenting groups of 10 Acromyrmex lundi workers with either short or long tunnel spaces and demonstrated that they will dig significantly less over time in a tunnel that is already long compared to one that is short. Additionally, we provided the same treatment to groups of 100 workers and found no significant effect of length, suggesting that group size has an important impact on tunnel excavation dynamics. Automated tracking was then used to examine tunnel digging in greater detail. Groups of 10 Atta colombica ants were tracked while excavating sand in a tunnel apparatus. There was a significant correlation between mean walking speed and excavation rate. Additionally, the ants would maintain a consistent level of proximity with each other over time. This suggests that as tunnel space expands, several factors combine to lower the chance of ants encountering the tunnel digging face and taking up excavation.


Self-organisation Tunnel excavation Behavioural regulation 



Experiment 1 was carried out at the Biocenter of the University of Würzburg, Germany, using funding from a Monash University Dean’s Scholarship. We offer special thanks to Professor Flavio Roces for providing laboratory facilities. We offer thanks to the Smithsonian Institute for access to the Barro Colorado Island research station for experiment 2. T. Czaczkes was supported by a DFG Emmy Noether group leader grant (grant number CZ 237/1–1). A. Escudero was supported by an FPU fellowship from Ministerio de Economa y Competitividad, Spain (AP2006-01666 to A.P.-E.).


  1. Bieber AGD, Marcondes A, Oliveira R, Wirth M, Tabarelli, Leal IR (2011) Do abandoned nests of leaf-cutting ants enhance plant recruitment in the Atlantic Forest?. Austral Ecol 36(2):220–232Google Scholar
  2. Bouchebti S, Ferrere S, Vittori K, Latil G, Dussutour A, Forcassié V (2015) Contact rate modulates foraging efficiency in leaf-cutting ants. Sci Rep 5:18650. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Buhl J, Deneubourg JL, Grimal A, Theraulaz G (2005) Self-organized digging activity in ant colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58(1):9–17Google Scholar
  4. Buhl J, Gautrais J, Deneubourg JL, Theraulaz G (2004) Nest excavation in ants: group size effects on the size and structure of tunneling networks. Naturwissenschaften 91(12):602–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cammeraat LH, Willot SJ, Compton SG, Incoll LD (2002) The effects of ants’ nests on the physical, chemical and hydrological properties of a rangeland soil in semi-arid Spain. Geoderma 105(1):1–20Google Scholar
  6. Cassill DL, Tschinkel WR, Vinson SB (2002) Nest complexity, group size and brood rearing in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Insectes Soc 49(2):158–163Google Scholar
  7. Crawley MJ (2013) The R Book. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Czaczkes TJ, Grüter C, Ratnieks FLW (2013) Negative feedback in ants: crowding results in less trail pheromone deposition. J R Soc Interface. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. de Bruyn L, Conacher AJ (1990) The role of termites and ants in soil modification—a review. Aust J Soil Res 28(1):55–93Google Scholar
  10. Deneubourg JL, Lioni A, Detrain C (2002) Dynamics of aggregation and emergence of cooperation. Biol Bull 202(3):262–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Depickère S, Fresneau D, Deneubourg JL (2004) A basis for spatial and social patterns in ant species: dynamics and mechanisms of aggregation. J Insect Behav 17(1):81–97Google Scholar
  12. Depickère S, Fresneau D, Deneubourg JL (2008) Effect of social and environmental factos on ant aggregation: a general response?. J Insect Physiol 54(9):1349–1355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Espinoza DN, Santamarina JC (2010) Ant tunneling—a granular media perspective. Granul Matter 12(6):607–616Google Scholar
  14. Forti LC, Camargo RS, Fujihara RT, Lopes JFS (2007) The nest architecture of the ant, Pheidole oxyops, 1908 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Sci 15(5):437–442Google Scholar
  15. Franks NR, Tofts C (1994) Foraging for work: how tasks allocate workers. Anim Behav 48(2):470–472Google Scholar
  16. Gordon DM (1989) Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants. Anim Behav 38(2):194–204Google Scholar
  17. Gordon DM, Mehdiabadi NJ (1999) Encounter rate and task allocation in harvester ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45(5):370–377Google Scholar
  18. Gordon DM, Paul RE, Thorpe K (1993) What is the function of encounter patterns in ant colonies?. Anim Behav 45(6):1083–1100Google Scholar
  19. Gravish N, Garcia M, Mazouchova N, Levy L, Umbanhowar PB, Goodisman MA, Goldisman DI (2012) Effects of worker size on the dynamics of fire ant tunnel construction. J R Soc Interface 9(77):3312–3322PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Gravish N, Monaenkova D, Goodisman MA, Goldisman DI (2013) Climbing, falling, and jamming during ant locomotion in confined environments. PNAS 110(24):9746–9751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene MJ, Gordon DM (2007) Interaction rate informs harvester ant task decisions. Behav Ecol 18(2):451–455Google Scholar
  22. Halboth F, Roces F (2017) Underground anemotactic orientation in leaf-cutting ants: perception of airflow and experience-dependent choice of airflow direction during digging. Sci Nat 104(82):9–10Google Scholar
  23. Halley JD, Burd M, Wells P (2005) Excavation and architecture of Argentine ant nests. Insectes Soc 52(4):350–356Google Scholar
  24. Jeanson R, Deneubourg JL, Grimal A, Theraulaz G (2004) Modulation of individual behavor and collective decision-making during aggregation site selection by the ant Messor barbarus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55(4):388–394Google Scholar
  25. Jones CG, Oldroyd BP (2007) Nest thermoregulation in social insects. Adv Insect Physiol 33:153–191Google Scholar
  26. Jouquet P, Dauber J, Lagerlöf J, Lavelle P, Lepage M (2006) Soil invertebrates as ecosystem engineers: Intended and accidental effects on soil and feedback loops. Appl Soil Ecol 32(2):153–164Google Scholar
  27. Khuong A, Gautrais J, Perna A, Sbai C, Combe M, Kuntz P, Jost C, Theraulaz G (2016) Stigmergic construction and topochemical information shape ant nest architecture. PNAS 113(5):1303–1308. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mikheyev AS, Tschinkel WR (2003) Nest architecture of the ant Formica pallidefulva: structure, costs and rules of excavation. Insectes Soc 51(1):30–36Google Scholar
  29. Pérez-Escudero A, Vincente-Page J, Hinz RC, Arganda S, Polavieja GG (2014) idTracker: tracking individuals in a group by automatic identification of unmarked animals. Nat Methods. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pielström S (2013) On the role of local information in the spatial organization of collective nest digging in the leaf-cutting ant Atta vollenweideri. PhD, Julius-Maximilian’s University, pp 65–87Google Scholar
  31. Pielström S, Roces F (2012) Vibrational communication in the spatial organization of collective digging in the leaf-cutting ant Atta vollenweideri. Anim Behav 84(4):743–752Google Scholar
  32. Pielström S, Roces F (2013) Sequential soil transport and its influence on the spatial organisation of collective digging in leaf-cutting ants. PLoS One 8(2):e57040. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Pinter-Wollman N, Bala A, Merrell A, Queirolo J, Stumpe MC, Holmes S, Gordon DM (2013) Harvester ants use interactions to regulate forager activation and availability. Anim Behav 86(1):197–207PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Pless E, Queirolo J, Pinter-Wollman N, Crow S, Allen K, Mathur MB, Gordon DM (2015) Interactions increase forager availability and activity in harvester ants. PLoS One 10(11):e0141971PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Powell S, Clark E (2004) Combat between large derived societies: a subterranean army ant established as a predator of mature leaf-cutting ant colonies. Insectes Soc 51(4):342–351Google Scholar
  36. Pratt SC (2005) Quorum sensing by encounter rates in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behav Ecol 16(2):488–496Google Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  38. Rasse P, Deneubourg JL (2001) Dynamics of nest excavation and nest size regulation of Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Insect Behav 14(4):433–449Google Scholar
  39. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Congdon R (2017) HLM 7.03 for Windows [Computer software]. Scientific Software International, Inc., Skokie, ILGoogle Scholar
  40. Roces F, Núñez JA (1993) Information about food quality influences load-size selection in recruited leaf-cutting ants. Anim Behav 45(1):135–143Google Scholar
  41. Römer D, Roces F (2015) Available space, symbiotic fungus and colony brood influence excavation and lead to the adjustment of nest enlargement in leaf-cutting ants. Insectes Soc 62(4):401–413Google Scholar
  42. Shukla RK, Singh H, Rastogi N, Agarwal VM (2013) Impact of abundant Pheidole ant species on soil nutrients in relation to the food biology of the species. Appl Soil Ecol 71:15–23Google Scholar
  43. Sudd JH (1975) A model of digging behaviour and tunnel production in ants. Insectes Soc 22(3):225–236Google Scholar
  44. Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E, Deneubourg JL (1998) Response threshold reinforcement and division of labour in insect societies. Proc R Soc B 265(1393):327–332Google Scholar
  45. Tschinkel WR (2003) Subterranean ant nests: trace fossils past and future? Palaeogeography. Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 192(1–4):321–333Google Scholar
  46. Tschinkel WR (2004) The nest architecture of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. J Insect Sci 4(21):1–19Google Scholar
  47. Weber NA (1972) Gardening ants: the attines. American Philosophical Society, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. I. Bruce
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Pérez-Escudero
    • 2
  • T. J. Czaczkes
    • 3
  • M. Burd
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition AnimaleCNRS, UPS, Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Biologie IUniversität RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations