Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual experience-based foraging can generate community territorial structure for competing ant species

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To gain additional territory while defending existing territory, animals must acquire and use information regarding resource characteristics and competitive pressure. For social organisms like ants, individual workers have experiences to acquire information, but territory establishment is a colony level behavior. Colony behavior, in turn, affects community structure. Here, I investigate how an individual ant’s previous experience affects its future foraging behavior and how individual behaviors can scale up to community territorial structure for two coexisting Formica species. To do this, I combine a field survey, a multi-agent computer simulation, and a manipulation experiment. The field survey shows that workers of both species co-occur on many trees early in the season, but ants on trees become segregated by species as the season progresses. The simulation demonstrates how this segregated spatial distribution can result from ants using a foraging strategy in which individuals show a preference for foraging sites based on previous experience. The experiment suggests that these ants are indeed capable of experience-based foraging behavior; ants preferentially return to sites where they have had positive experiences and avoid sites where they have had negative experiences. Results from this study suggest that spatially explicit information can be collected and stored by individuals to facilitate colony territorial structure, and that future investigations of community territory formation should include effects of individual previous experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams ES (1990) Boundary disputes in the territorial ant Azteca trigona: Effects of asymmetries in colony size. Anim Behav 39:321–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams ES (1994) Territory defense by the ant Azteca trigona: maintenance of an arboreal ant mosaic. Oecologia 97:202–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams ES (1998) Territory size and shape in fire ants: a model based on neighborhood interactions. Ecology 79:1125–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler FR, Gordon DM (1992) Information collection and spread by networks of patrolling ants. The Am Nat 140:373–400

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Adler FR, Gordon DM (2003) Optimization, conflict, and nonoverlapping foraging ranges in ants. The Am Nat 162:529–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis (second edition). Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Camazine S, Deneubourg JL, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney DL (1987) Interactions and relations between groups. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struthsaker TT (eds) Primitive societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 267–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosens D, Toussaint N (1985) An experimental study of the foraging strategy of the wood ant Formica aquilonia. Anim Behav 33:541–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DW (1998) Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade-off. Ecol Entomol 32:484–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM (2005) Individual-based modeling of ecological and evolutionary processes. Ann Rev Ecolog Evolutionary Syst 36:147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries H, Biesmeijer JC (1998) Modeling collective foraging by means of individual behavior rules in honey-bees. Behav Ecolog Sociobiol 44:109–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R (2008) Evolutionary Biology of Insect Learning. Ann Rev Entomol 53:145–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dussutour A, Deneubourg JL, Fourcassié V (2005) Amplification of individual preferences in a social context: the case of wall-following in ants. Proc Royal Soc B 272:705–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eason P, Hannon SJ (1994) New birds on the block: new neighbors increase defensive costs for territorial male willow ptarmigan. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:419–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fewell JH (1990) Directional fidelity as a foraging constraint in the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Oecologia 82:45–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fourcassié V, Traniello JFA (1993) Effects of experience on food-searching behavior in the ant Formica schaufussi (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Insect Behav 6:287–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (2005) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, Berkshire, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie DT (1977) Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. The J Phys Chem 81:2340–2361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Giurfa M (2006) Associative learning: the instructive function of biogenic amines. Curr Biol 16:R892–R895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM, Rosengren R, Sundstrom L (1992) The allocation of foragers in red wood ants. Ecol Entomol 17:114–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy S, Braithwaite V (2000) Cognitive ecology: a field of substance. Trends Ecol Evol 15:22–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B (1976) Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav Ecolog Sociobiol 1:3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B, Lumsden CJ (1980) Territorial strategies in ants. Science 210:732–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The Ants. Belknap, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Keim P, Paige KM, Whitham TG, Lark KG (1989) Genetic analysis of an interspecific hybrid swarm of Populus: occurrence of unidirectional introgression. Genetics 123:557–565

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendal RL, Coolen I, Laland KN (2004) The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict. Behav Ecol 15:269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Lopez-Sepulcre A, Morrell LJ (2006) From hawks and doves to self-consistent games of territorial behavior. The Am Nat 167:901–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangel M (1993) Motivation, learning, and motivational learning. In: Papaj DR, Lewis C (eds) Insect learning. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 158–173

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Green RF, Olsson O (2006) Bayes’ theorem and its applications in animal behaviour. Oikos 112:243–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer D, Zeileis A, Hornik K (2007) vcd: visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.0-4

  • Morrell LJ, Kokko H (2003) Adaptive strategies of territory formation. Behav Ecolog Sociobiol 54:385–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson DJ, Judd SP, Cartwright BA, Collett TS (1999) Learning walks and landmark guidance in wood ants (Formica rufa). J Exp Biol 202:1831–1838

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt SC, Sumpter DJ, Mallon EB, Franks NR (2005) An agent-based model of collective nest choice by the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Anim Behav 70:1023–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2007) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL http://www.R-project.org

  • Rayor LS (2004) Social organization and space-use in Gunnison’s prairie dog. Behav Ecolog Sociobiol 22:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosengren R, Fortelius W (1987) Trail communication and directional recruitment to food in red wood ants (Formica). Annales Zoologici Fennici 24:137–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosengren R, Sundström L (1987) The foraging system of a red wood ant colony (Formica s. str.) - collecting and defending food through an extended phenotype. In: Pasteels JM, Deneubourg JL (eds) From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Birkhäuser Verlag, Boston, Massachusetts, pp 117–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Saleh N, Chittka L (2006) The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav Ecolog Sociobiol 61:215–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilman PE, Roces F (2003) Assessment of nectar flow rate and memory for patch quality in the ant Camponotus rufipes. Anim Behav 66:687–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. The Am Nat 122:240–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer S, von Beeren C, Wehner R (2008) Multiroute memories in desert ants. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:317–322

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (2001) How territorial animals compete for divisible space: a learning-based model with unequal competitors. The Am Nat 157:154–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sumpter DJ, Pratt SC (2003) A modeling framework for understanding social insect foraging. Behav Ecolog Sociobiol 53:131–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundström L (1993) Foraging responses of Formica truncorum (Hymenoptera; Formcidae); exploiting stable vs. spatially and temporally variable resources. Insectes Sociaux 40:147–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner CJ (2006) Numerical assessment affects aggression and competitive ability: a team-fighting strategy for the ant Formica xerophila. Proc Royal Soc B 273:2737–2742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner CJ (2008a) Resource characteristics and competition affect colony and individual foraging strategies of the wood ant Formica integroides. Ecolo Entomol 33:127–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner CJ (2008b) Aggressive group behavior in the ant Formica xerophila is coordinated by direct nestmate contact. Anim Behav 76:1335–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vet LEM, Groenewold AW (1990) Semiochemicals and learning in parasitoids. J Chem Ecol 16:3119–3135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wimp GM, Whitham TG (2001) Biodiversity consequences of predation and host plant hybridization on an aphid-ant mutualism. Ecology 82:440–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright PJ, Bonser R, Chukwu UO (2000) The size-distance relationship in the wood ant Formica rufa. Ecol Entomol 25:226–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank F. Adler for his support with computer simulations and manuscript revisions. Comments from K. Houck, S. Pratt, J. Seger, and two anonymous reviewers improved earlier versions of this manuscript. T. Whitham provided access to the field site. All experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 South 1400 East Rm 201, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112-0840, USA

    Colby J. Tanner

Authors
  1. Colby J. Tanner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colby J. Tanner.

Additional information

Communicated by J. Traniello.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tanner, C.J. Individual experience-based foraging can generate community territorial structure for competing ant species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63, 591–603 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0694-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0694-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation