Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 197, Issue 2, pp 167–179 | Cite as

Views, landmarks, and routes: how do desert ants negotiate an obstacle course?

  • Antoine Wystrach
  • Sebastian Schwarz
  • Patrick Schultheiss
  • Guy Beugnon
  • Ken Cheng
Original Paper

Abstract

The Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti often follows stereotypical routes through a cluttered landscape containing both distant panoramic views and obstacles (plants) to navigate around. We created an artificial obstacle course for the ants between a feeder and their nest. Landmarks comprised natural objects in the landscape such as logs, branches, and tussocks. Many ants travelled stereotypical routes home through the obstacle course in training, threading repeatedly the same gaps in the landmarks. Manipulations altering the relations between the landmarks and the surrounding panorama, however, affected the routes in two major ways. Both interchanging the positions of landmarks (transpositions) and displacing the entire landmark set along with the starting position of the ants (translations) (1) reduced the stereotypicality of the route, and (2) increased turns and meanders during travel. The ants might have used the entire panorama in view-based travel, or the distal panorama might prime the identification and use of landmarks en route. Despite the large data set, both options (not mutually exclusive) remain viable.

Keywords

Landmark Route Navigation Panorama Desert ant 

References

  1. Benhamou S (1996) No evidence for cognitive mapping in rats. Anim Behav 52:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett ATD (1996) Do animals have cognitive maps? J Exp Biol 199:219–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beugnon G, Lachaud J-P, Chagné P (2005) Use of long-term stored vector information in the neotropical ant Gigantiops destructor. J Insect Behav 18:415–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calhoun JB (1963) The ecology and sociology of the Norway rat. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  5. Chameron S, Schatz B, Pastergue-Ruiz I, Beugnon G, Collett TS (1998) The learning of a sequence of visual patterns by the ant Cataglyphis cursor. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:2309–2313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng K (2005) Context cues eliminate retroactive interference effects in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Exp Biol 208:1019–1024CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng K (2006) Arthropod navigation: ants, bees, crabs, spiders finding their way. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 189–209Google Scholar
  8. Cheng K, Narendra A, Sommer S, Wehner R (2009) Traveling in clutter: navigation in the Central Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti. Behav Proc 80:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christian KA, Morton SR (1992) Extreme thermophilia in a Central Australian ant, Melophorus bagoti. Physiol Zool 65:885–905Google Scholar
  10. Colborn M, Ahmad-Annuar A, Fauria K, Collett TS (1999) Contextual modulation of visuomotor associations in bumble-bees (Bombus terrestris). Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2413–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collett TS, Collett M (2002) Memory use in insect visual navigation. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:542–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Collett TS, Kelber A (1988) The retrieval of visuo-spatial memories by honeybees. J Comp Physiol A 163:145–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Collett TS, Dillmann E, Giger A, Wehner R (1992) Visual landmarks and route following in desert ants. J Comp Physiol A 170:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collett TS, Fry S, Wehner R (1993) Sequence learning by honeybees. J Comp Physiol A 172:693–706Google Scholar
  15. Collett TS, Fauria K, Dale K, Baron J (1997) Places and patterns: a study of context learning in honeybees. J Comp Physiol A 181:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collett M, Collett TS, Bisch S, Wehner R (1998) Local and global vectors in desert ant navigation. Nature 394:269–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collett M, Harland D, Collett TS (2002) The use of landmarks and panoramic context in the performance of local vectors by navigating honeybees. J Exp Biol 205:807–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Collett TS, Fauria K, Dale K (2003) Contextual cues and insect navigation. In: Jeffery KJ (ed) The neurobiology of spatial behaviour. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 67–82Google Scholar
  19. Dyer FC (1991) Bees acquire route-based memories but not cognitive maps in a familiar landscape. Anim Behav 41:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dyer FC, Gill M, Sharbowski J (2002) Motivation and vector navigation in honey bees. Naturwissenschaften 89:262–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallistel CR, Fairhurst S, Balsam P (2004) The learning curve: implications of a quantitative analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13124–13131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gould JL (1986) The locale map of honeybees: do insects have cognitive maps? Science 232:861–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Graham P, Cheng K (2009a) Ants use the panoramic skyline as a visual cue during navigation. Curr Biol 19:R935–R937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham P, Cheng K (2009b) Which portion of the natural panorama is used for view based navigation in the Australian desert ant? J Comp Physiol A 195:681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graham P, Fauria K, Collett TS (2003) The influence of beacon-aiming on the routes of wood ants. J Exp Biol 206:535–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kohler M, Wehner R (2005) Idiosyncratic route memories in desert ants, Melophorus bagoti: how do they interact with path integration vectors? Neurobiol Learn Mem 83:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Koltermann R (1971) 24-Std-Periodik in der Langzeiterinnerung an Duft- und Farbsignale bei der Honigbiene (Circadian memory rhythm after scent and colour training with honey-bees). Z Vergl Physiol 75:49–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Legge ELG, Spetch ML, Cheng K (2010) Not using the obvious: desert ants, Melophorus bagoti, learn local vectors but not beacons in an arena. Anim Cogn 13:849–860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Macquart D, Garnier L, Combe M, Beugnon G (2006) Ant navigation en route to the goal: signature routes facilitate way-finding of Gigantiops destructor. J Comp Physiol A 192:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macquart D, Latil G, Beugnon G (2008) Sensorimotor sequence learning in the ant Gigantiops destructor. Anim Behav 75:1693–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menzel R, Greggers U, Smith A, Berger S, Brandt R, Brunke S et al (2005) Honeybees navigate according to a map-like spatial memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:3040–3045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Muser B, Sommer S, Wolf H, Wehner R (2005) Foraging ecology of the thermophilic Australian desert ant, Melophorus bagoti. Aust J Zool 53:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Narendra A (2007) Homing strategies of the Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti I. Proportional path integration takes the ant half-way home. J Exp Biol 210:1798–1803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Narendra A, Cheng K, Wehner R (2007) Acquiring, retaining and integrating memories of the outbound distance in the Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti. J Exp Biol 210:570–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Brien RG (1979) A general ANOVA method for robust tests of additive models of variances. J Am Stat Assoc 74:877–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosengren R (1971) Route fidelity, visual memory and recruitment behaviour in foraging wood ants of the genus Formica (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Acta Zool Fenn 133:1–105Google Scholar
  37. Schultheiss P, Schwarz S, Wystrach A (2010) Nest relocation and colony founding in the Australian desert ant, Melophorus bagoti Lubbock (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche. doi:10.1155/2010/435838
  38. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior, second edition. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Srinivasan MV, Zhang SW, Berry J, Cheng K, Zhu H (1999) Honeybee navigation: linear perception of short distances travelled. J Comp Physiol A 185:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Towne WF, Moscrip H (2008) The connection between landscapes and the solar ephemeris in honeybees. J Exp Biol 211:3729–3736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wehner R, Menzel R (1990) Do insects have cognitive maps? Ann Rev Neurosci 13:403–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wehner R, Boyer M, Loertscher F, Sommer S, Menzi U (2006) Ant navigation: one-way routes rather than maps. Curr Biol 16:75–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wystrach A (2009) Ants in rectangular arenas: a support for the global matching theory. Commun Integr Biol 2:388–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wystrach A, Beugnon G (2009) Ants learn geometry and features. Curr Biol 19:61–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeil J, Hofmann MI, Chahl JS (2003) Catchment areas of panoramic snapshots in outdoor scenes. J Opt Soc Am 20:450–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang SW, Bartsch K, Srinivasan MV (1996) Maze learning by honeybees. Neurobiol Learn Mem 66:267–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang SW, Lehrer M, Srinivasan MV (1999) Honeybee memory: navigation by associative grouping and recall of visual stimuli. Neurobiol Learn Mem 72:180–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoine Wystrach
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sebastian Schwarz
    • 1
  • Patrick Schultheiss
    • 1
  • Guy Beugnon
    • 2
  • Ken Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale, CNRS, Université Paul SabatierToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations