Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 1381–1396 | Cite as

Communal Foraging Behavior and Recruitment Communication in Gloveria sp.

  • T. D. Fitzgerald
  • D. L. A. Underwood
Article

Abstract

The caterpillars of Gloveria sp. mark trails with a pheromone they deposit by dragging the ventral surface of the tip of the abdomen along branch pathways as they move between their communal nest and distance feeding sites. The threshold sensitivity of the caterpillar for an extract prepared from the secretory site was approximately 0.5 × 10−3 caterpillar equivalents/cm of trail. Bioassays show that Gloveria follows neither authentic trails of Malacosoma americanum nor artificial trails prepared from 5β-cholestane-3-one, a chemical previously reported to elicit trail following from other social caterpillars. Although our observations show that fed caterpillars mark heavily as they return to their nest, we found no evidence that individual caterpillars are able to recruit hungry nestmates to new food finds. In this species, recruitment to food occurs only after many caterpillars have reinforced a trail to a newly discovered food source. In contrast, hungry caterpillars of the confamilial species M. americanum, tested under identical conditions, responded strongly to the postprandial trails of individual caterpillars and rapidly abandoned depleted sites in favor of new food finds. We postulate that the difference in the efficiency with which these two species recruit nestmates to food evolved in response to differences in the spatial distribution of their food supplies.

Gloveria Eucheira Malacosoma trail pheromone recruitment foraging Lasiocampidae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Capinera, J. L. 1980. A trail pheromone from the silk produced by larvae of the range caterpillar Hemileuca olivae (Lepidoptera: Saturnidae) and observations on aggregation behavior. J. Chem. Ecol. 3:655–644.Google Scholar
  2. Costa, J. T., and Pierce, N. E. 1997. Social evolution in the Lepidoptera: ecological context and communication in larval societies, pp. 407–442, in J. C. Choe and B. J. Crespi (eds.). The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Beckers, R., Deneubourg, J. L., Goss, S., and Pastells, J. M. 1990. Collective decision making through food recruitment. Insectes Soc. 37:258–267.Google Scholar
  4. de Biseau, J. C., Deneubourg, J. L., and Pasteels, J. M. 1992. Collective fiexibility during mass recruitment in the ant Myrmica sabuleti (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 98:323–336.Google Scholar
  5. de Biseau, J. C., Schuiten, M., Pasteels, J. M., and Deneubourg, J. L. 1994. Respective contributions of leader and trail during recruitment to food in Tetramorium bicarinatum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insectes Soc. 41:241–254.Google Scholar
  6. Fitzgerald, T. D. 1993. Trail and arena marking by caterpillars of Archips cerasivoranus (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 19:1479–1489.Google Scholar
  7. Fitzgerald, T. D. 1995. The Tent Caterpillars. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Fitzgerald, T. D., and Costa, J. T. 1986. Trail–based communication and foraging behavior of young colonies of the forest tent caterpillar Malacosoma disstria Hubn. (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 79:999–1007.Google Scholar
  9. Fitzgerald, T. D., and Peterson, S. C. 1988. Cooperative foraging and communication in social caterpillars. BioScience 38:20–25.Google Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald, T. D., and Underwood, D. L. A. 1998. Trail marking by the larva of the Madrone butterfly Eucheira socialis and the role of the trail pheromone in communal foraging behavior. J. Insect Behav. In press.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzgerald, T. D., and Willer, D. E. 1983. Tent building behavior of the eastern tent caterpillar Malacosoma americanum (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 56:20–31.Google Scholar
  12. HÖlldobler, B. 1976. Recruitment behavior, home range orientation, and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1:3–44.Google Scholar
  13. Peeters, C. 1997. Morphologically “primitive” ants: Comparative review of social characters and the importance of queen–worker dimorphism, pp. 372–390, in J. C. Choe and B. J. Crespi (eds.). The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Perry, J. E. 1991. The Pines of Mexico and Central America. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  15. Peterson, S. C. 1988. Chemical trail marking and following by caterpillars of Malacosoma neustria. J. Chem. Ecol. 14:815–823.Google Scholar
  16. Peterson, S. C., and Fitzgerald, T. D. 1991. Chemoorientation of eastern tent caterpillars to trail pheromone 5β–cholestane–3–24–dione. J. Chem. Ecol. 17:1963–1972.Google Scholar
  17. Roessingh, P. 1989. The trail following behaviour of Yponomeuta cagnagellus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 51:49–57.Google Scholar
  18. Roessingh, P. 1990. Chemical marker from silk of Yponomeuta cagnagellus. J. Chem. Ecol. 16:2203–2216.Google Scholar
  19. Traniello, J. F. A. 1989. Foraging strategies of ants. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 34:191–210.Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, E. O. 1971. The Insect Societies. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. D. Fitzgerald
    • 1
  • D. L. A. Underwood
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesState University of New York, College at CortlandCortland
  2. 2.Evolution and EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavis

Personalised recommendations