The Science of Nature

, 103:36 | Cite as

Ant workers exhibit specialization and memory during raft formation

  • Amaury AvrilEmail author
  • Jessica Purcell
  • Michel Chapuisat
Original Paper


By working together, social insects achieve tasks that are beyond the reach of single individuals. A striking example of collective behaviour is self-assembly, a process in which individuals link their bodies together to form structures such as chains, ladders, walls or rafts. To get insight into how individual behavioural variation affects the formation of self-assemblages, we investigated the presence of task specialization and the role of past experience in the construction of ant rafts. We subjected groups of Formica selysi workers to two consecutive floods and monitored the position of individuals in rafts. Workers showed specialization in their positions when rafting, with the same individuals consistently occupying the top, middle, base or side position in the raft. The presence of brood modified workers’ position and raft shape. Surprisingly, workers’ experience in the first rafting trial with brood influenced their behaviour and raft shape in the subsequent trial without brood. Overall, this study sheds light on the importance of workers’ specialization and memory in the formation of self-assemblages.


Self-assemblage Collective behaviour Task specialization Rafting Ants Formicinae 



We thank Magalie Dialundama for her assistance in the lab, Emilie Lefoulon for the illustration of the ant raft, and Christoph Grüter, Adam L. Cronin and anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. This project was funded by Swiss National Science Foundation grant 31003A-146641.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams BJ, Hooper-Bùi LM, Strecker RM, O’Brien DM (2011) Raft formation by the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. J Insect Sci 11Google Scholar
  2. Anderson C, Théraulaz G, Deneubourg J-L (2002) Self-assemblages in insect societies. Insect Soc 49:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beshers S, Fewell J (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cahan SH, Gardner-Morse E (2013) The emergence of reproductive division of labor in forced queen groups of the ant Pogonomyrmex barbatus. J Zool 291:12–22. doi: 10.1111/jzo.12071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camazine S, Deneubourg JL, Franks N, Sneyd J, Théraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. In: Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Couzin ID, Krause J (2003) Self-organization and collective behavior in vertebrates. Adv Study Behav 32:1–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronin AL (2015) Individual and group personalities characterise consensus decision-making in an ant. Ethology 121:703–713. doi: 10.1111/eth.12386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cully SM, Seeley TD (2004) Self-assemblage formation in a social insect: the protective curtain of a honey bee swarm. Insect Soc 51:317–324. doi: 10.1007/s00040-004-0743-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dejean A, Leroy C, Corbara C, Roux O, Céréghino R, Orivel J, Boulay R (2010) Arboreal ants use the “Velcro® Principle” to capture very large prey. PloS One 5. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0011331.g001
  10. Detrain C, Deneubourg J-L (2008) Collective decision-making and foraging patterns in ants and honeybees. Adv Insect Physiol 35:123–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duarte A, Weissing FJ, Pen I, Keller L (2011) An evolutionary perspective on self-organized division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42:91–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dussutour A, Beekman M, Nicolis SC, Meyer B (2009) Noise improves collective decision-making by ants in dynamic environments. Proc R Soc B 276:4353–4361. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1235 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferguson-Gow H, Sumner S, Bourke AF, Jones KE (2014) Colony size predicts division of labour in attine ants. Proc Biol Sci 281. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2014.1411
  14. Ferrante E, Turgut AE, Duéñez-Guzmán E, Dorigo M, Wenseleers T (2015) Evolution of self-organized task specialization in robot swarms. PLoS Comput Biol 11. doi:  10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004273
  15. Foster PC, Mlot NJ, Lin A, Hu DL (2014) Fire ants actively control spacing and orientation within self-assemblages. J Exp Biol 217:2089–2100. doi: 10.1242/jeb.093021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Franks NR (1985) Reproduction, foraging efficiency and worker polymorphism in army ants. Fortschr Zool 31:91–107Google Scholar
  17. Garnier S, Murphy T, Lutz M, Hurme E, Leblanc S, Couzin ID (2013) Stability and responsiveness in a self-organized living architecture. PLoS Comput Biol 9:e1002984. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002984 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Grüter C, Farina WM (2009) Past experiences affect interaction patterns among foragers and hive-mates in honeybees. Ethology 115:790–797. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01670.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holbrook CT, Barden PM, Fewell JH (2011) Division of labor increases with colony size in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Behav Ecol 22:960–966. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holbrook CT, Fewell JH, Kukuk PF (2013) Increased group size promotes task specialization in a normally solitary halictine bee. Behaviour 1–18 doi:  10.1163/1568539x-00003104
  21. Hui A, Pinter-Wollman N (2014) Individual variation in exploratory behaviour improves speed and accuracy of collective nest selection by Argentine ants. Anim Behav 93:261–266. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.05.006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Jandt JM, Bengston S, Pinter-Wollman N, Pruitt JN, Raine NE, Dornhaus A, Sih A (2013) Behavioural syndromes and social insects: personality at multiple levels. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 89:48–67. doi: 10.1111/brv.12042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeanson R, Weidenmuller A (2014) Interindividual variability in social insects—proximate causes and ultimate consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 89:671–687. doi: 10.1111/brv.12074 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeanson R, Dussutour A, Fourcassie V (2012) Key factors for the emergence of collective decision in invertebrates. Front Neurosci 6:121. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2012.00121 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Liang SH, Lin WY, Lin YC, Chen YC, Shieh BS (2010) Variations in the pit size of Cueta sauteri (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) larvae in response to past pit-building experience and food limitation. Zool Stud 49:102–107Google Scholar
  26. Lioni A, Sauwens C, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg J-L (2001) Chain formation in Oecophylla longinoda. J Insect Behav 14:679–696. doi: 10.1023/A:1012283403138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lude A, Reich M, Plachter H (1999) Life strategies of ants in unpredictable floodplain habitats of Alpine rivers (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomol Gen 24:75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mailleux A-C, Deneubourg J-L, Detrain C (2003) How does colony growth influence communication in ants? Insect Soc 50:24–31.Google Scholar
  29. Meunier J, Chapuisat M (2009) The determinants of queen size in a socially polymorphic ant. J Evol Biol 22:1906–1913. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01805.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mlot NJ, Tovey C, Hu DL (2012) Dynamics and shape of large fire ant rafts. Commun Integr Biol 5:590–597. doi: 10.4161/cib.21421 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Modlmeier AP, Keiser CN, Shearer TA, Pruitt JN (2014) Species-specific influence of group composition on collective behaviors in ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1929–1937. doi: 10.1007/s00265-014-1799-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Monographs in population biology, vol 12. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  33. Peeters C, De Greef S (2015) Predation on large millipedes and self-assembling chains in Leptogenys ants from Cambodia. Insect Soc 62:471–477. doi: 10.1007/s00040-015-0426-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2011) How within-group behavioural variation and task efficiency enhance fitness in a social group. Proc R Soc B 278:1209–1215. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1700 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Purcell J, Avril A, Jaffuel G, Bates S, Chapuisat M (2014) Ant brood function as life preservers during floods. PLoS ONE 9. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0089211.g001,  10.1371/journal.pone.0089211.g002
  36. R Development Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  37. Ravary F, Lecoutey E, Kaminski G, Chaline N, Jaisson P (2007) Individual experience alone can generate lasting division of labor in ants. Curr Biol 17:1308–1312. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Reid CR, Lutz MJ, Powell S, Kao AB, Couzin ID, Garnier S (2015) Army ants dynamically adjust living bridges in response to a cost-benefit trade-off. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:15113–15118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1512241112 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Rocha FH, Lachaud J-P, Valle-Mora J, Pérez-Lachaud G, Zeh D (2014) Fine individual specialization and elitism among workers of the ant Ectatomma tuberculatum for a highly specific task: intruder removal. Ethology 120:1185–1198. doi: 10.1111/eth.12291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwander T, Rosset H, Chapuisat M (2005) Division of labour and worker size polymorphism in ant colonies: the impact of social and genetic factors. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:215–221. doi: 10.1007/s00265-005-0027-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwartz AM, Baird TA, Timanus DK (2007) Influence of age and prior experience on territorial behavior and the costs of defense in male collared lizards. Ethology 113:9–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01297.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seifert B (2002) A taxonomic revision of the Formica cinerea group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Abh Ber Naturkundemuseum Görlitz 74:245–272Google Scholar
  43. Shah AA, Ryan MJ, Bevilacqua E, Schlaepfer MA (2010) Prior experience alters the behavioral response of prey to a nonnative predator. J Herpetol 44:185–192. doi: 10.1670/09-025.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith CR, Toth AL, Suarez AV, Robinson GE (2008) Genetic and genomic analyses of the division of labour in insect societies. Nat Rev Genet 9:735–748. doi: 10.1038/nrg2429 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson EO (1980) Caste and division of labor in leaf-cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta). I. The overall pattern in A. sexdens. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amaury Avril
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessica Purcell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michel Chapuisat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolution, Biophore, UNIL-SorgeUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations