Decision-making in foraging by social insects

  • Claire Detrain
  • Jean-Louis Deneubourg
  • Jacques M. Pasteels


How are foraging decisions determined in social insects? Investigations implemented within the framework of the optimal foraging theory bring evolutionary and functional answers. In this respect, decisions of solitary foragers like bumblebees seem to be ruled by an optimization of the energy (and time) invested among different feeding sites. Similarly, in insects which can forage collectively, like ants or honeybees, decisions have been interpreted in terms of energetic reward assigned to single workers without any reference to recruitment. Evidence, however, supports the idea that (time and energy) investments in recruitment of nestmates can also alter foraging decisions of the individual. Additional questions arise as to how an insect processes information about food resources and environmental constraints and decides whether or not to recruit nestmates. In ants, adaptive collective decisions emerge from numerous interactions among individuals which use local information and follow simple decisional algorithms to modulate their recruiting behavior. The environment itself contributes to the emergence of foraging decisions by altering the dynamics of recruitment and trail reinforcement. Several experimental and theoretical findings will lead us to re-consider the level of complexity of information processing and coding needed for the emergence of adaptive foraging patterns.


Social Insect Trail Pheromone High Predation Pressure Behav Ecol Solitary Forager 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tinbergen N (1951) The study of instinct. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wehner R, Harkness RD, Schmid-Hempel P (1983) Foraging strategies in individually searching ants Cataglyphis bicolor (Hym-enoptera: formicidae). In: M Lindauer (ed): Information processing in animals. G. Fischer, Stuttgart, 1–79Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schmid-Hempel P (1987) Foraging characteristics of the desert ant Cataglyphis. In: J Pasteels and JL Deneubourg (Eds): From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, 43–63Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fresneau D (1985) Individual foraging and patch fidelity in a ponerine ant. Insect Soc 32: 109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maynard Smith J (1978) Optimization theory in evolution? Annu Rev Ecol Syst 9: 31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stephen DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krebs JR, Davies NB (1992) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orians GH, Pearson NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. In: DJ Horn, GR Stairs, RD Mitchell (eds): Analysis of ecological systems. Ohio State University Press, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harder LD (1990) Behavioral responses by bumble bees to variation in pollen availability. Oecologia 85: 41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chittka L, Gumbert A, Kunze J (1996) Foraging dynamics of bumble bees: correlates of movements within and betweeen species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8(3): 239–249Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Waddington KD, Allen T, Heinrich B (1981) Floral preferences of bumblebees (Bombus edwardsii) in relation to intermittent versus continuous rewards. Anim Behav 29: 779–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harder LD, Real LA (1987) Why are bumble bees risk averse. Ecology 68(4): 1104–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kacelnik A, Bateson M (1996) Risky-theories: the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Amer Zool 36: 402–434Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waddington (1995) Bumble bees do not respond to variance in nectar concentration. Ethology 101: 33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cartar RV, Dill LM (1990) Why are bumble bees risk sensitive foragers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26: 121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging: movement patterns of bumble bees between inflorescences. Theor Pop Biol 13: 72–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hodges CM (1985) Bumblebees foraging: the threshold departure rule. Ecology 66: 179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pleasants JM (1989) Optimal foraging by nectarivores: a test of marginal value theorem. Amer Naturalist 134: 51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waddington KD (1980) Flight patterns of foraging bees relative to density of artificial flowers and distribution of nectar. Oecologia 44: 199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Real LA (1992) Information processing and the evolutionary ecology of cognitive architecture. Amer Naturalist 36: 518–529Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Real LA (1996) Paradox, performance and the architecture of decision-making in animals. Amer Zool 36: 518–529Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A, Houston AI (1985) Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crop. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17: 61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmid-Hempel P (1987) Efficient nectar-collecting by honeybees. I. Economic models. J Anim Ecol 56: 209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmid-Hempel P, Schmid-Hempel R (1987) Efficient nectar-collecting by honeybees. II. Responses to factors determining nectar availability. J Anim Ecol 219-227Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Traniello JF, Fujita MS, Bowen RV (1984) Ant foraging behavior: ambient temperature affects prey selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15: 65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Traniello JF (1987) Social and individual responses to environmental factors in ants In: J Pasteels and JL Deneubourg (eds): From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, 63–80Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heinrich B (1975) Energetics of pollination. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6: 139–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fewell JH (1988) Energetic and time costs of foraging in harvester ants Pogono-myrmex occidentalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22(6): 401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fewell JH, Harrison JF, Lighton JR, Breed M (1996) Foraging energetics of the ant Paraponera clavata. Oecologia 105: 419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davidson DW (1979) Experimental tests of the optimal diet in two social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 4(1): 35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roces E (1990) Leaf-cutting ants cut fragment sizes in relation to distance from the nest. Anim Behav 40: 1181–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Baroni-Urbani C, Nielsen MG (1990) Energetics and foraging behaviour of the European harvesting ant, Messor capitatus (Latreille). Do ants really optimize their harvesting? Physiol Entomol 15: 449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wetterer JK (1992) Source distance has no effect on load size in the leaf-cutting ant. Atta cephalotes. Psyche 98: 355–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nunez JA (1982) Honeybee foraging strategies at a food source in relation to its distance from the hive and the rate of sugar flow. J Apicult Res 21: 139–150Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nunez JA, Giurfa M (1996) Motivation and regulation of honey bee foraging. Bee World 77 (4): 182–196Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roces F, Nunez JA (1993) Information about food quality influences brood size selection in recruited leaf cutting ants. Anim Behav 45: 135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Taylor F (1977) Foraging behavior of ants: experiments with two species of myrmicine ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2: 147–167Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Quinet Y, Pasteeis JM (1991) Spatio-temporal evolution of the trail network in Lasius fuliginosus (Hymenoptera, Formici-dae). Belg J Zool 121: 55–72Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chadab R, Rettenmeyer CW (1975) Mass recruitment by army ants. Science 188: 1124–1125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fewell JH, Harrison JF, Stiller TM, Breed MD (1992) Distance effects on resource profitability and recruitment in the giant tropical ant Paraponera clavata Oecologia 92: 542–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Deneubourg JL, Goss S (1989) Collective patterns and decision-making. Ethol Ecol Evol 1: 295–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Pasteeis JM (1990) Collective decision-making through food recruitment. Insect Soc 37(3), 258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hantgartner W (1970) Control of phero-mone quantity in odor trails of the ant Acanthomyops interjectus. Experientia 26: 664–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Crawford DL, Rissing SW (1983) Regulation of recruitment by individual scouts in Formica oreas Wheeler (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insect Soc 30(2): 177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Goss S (1993) Modulation of trail-laying in the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and its role in the collective selection of a food source. J Insect Behav 6 (6): 751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Szlep R, Jacobi T (1967) The mechanism of recruitment to mass foraging in colonies of Monomoriuum venustum, M. subopacum ssp. phoenicum, Tapinoma Israelis and T. simothi v. phoenicum. Insect Soc 1: 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    de Biseau JC, Deneubourg JL, Pasteeis JM (1991) Collective flexibility during mass recruitment in the ant Myrmica sabuleti (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 98(4): 323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Breed MD, Fewell JH, Moore AJ, Williams KR (1987) Graded recruitment in a ponerine ant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20: 407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wilson EO (1962) Chemical communication among workers of the fire ant Solenopsis saevissima (Fr Smith): the organization of mass foraging. Anim Behav 10: 134–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hantgartner W (1969) Structure and variability of the individual odor trail in Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). Z Vergl Physiol 62: 111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Verhaeghe JC (1982) Food recruitment in Tetramorium impurum. Insect Soc 29: 67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Traniello JFA (1983) Social organization and foraging success in Lasius neoniger (HymenopteraiFormicidae): behavioral and ecological aspects of recruitment communication. Oecologia 59: 94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cammaerts MC (1980) Systèmes d’approvisionnement chez Myrmica scabrinodis (Formicidae). Insect Soc 27(4): 328–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cammaerts MC, Cammaerts R (1980) Food recruitment strategies of the ants Myrmica sabuleti and Myrmica ruginodis. Behav Process 5: 251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    de Biseau JC, Pasteeis JM (1994) Regulated food recruitment through individual behavior of scouts in the ant Myrmica sabuleti (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Insect Behav 7(6): 767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Detrain C, Deneubourg JL (1997) Scavenging by Pheidole pallidula: a key for understanding decision-making systems in ants. Anim Behav 53: 537–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Detrain C, Pasteeis JM, Deneubourg JL, Goss S (1990) Prey foraging by the ant Pheidole pallidula: decision-making systems in food recruitment. In: GK Veeresh, B Mallik, CA Viraktamah (eds): Social insects and the environment. Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi, 500–501Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Detrain C, Pasteels JM (1991) Caste differences in behavioural thresholds as a basis for polyethism during food recruitment in the ant Pheidole pallidula (Nyl.). J Insect Behav 4(2): 157–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Detrain C, Mailleux AC, Deneubourg JL (1997) Coding of food volume in the ant Lasius niger. Ethology 32: 183Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hahn M, Maaschwitz U (1985) Foraging strategies and recruitment behaviour in the European harvester ant Messor rufitarsis. Oecologia 68: 45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nonacs P (1990) Death in the distance: mortality risk as information for foraging ants. Behaviour 112: 23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Nonacs P, Dill LM (1988) Foraging response of the ant Lasius pallitarsis to food sources with associated mortality risk. Insect Soc 35: 293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Goss S (1992) Trails and U-turns in the selection of a path by the ant Lasius niger. J Theor Biol 159: 397–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Themen P, McNeil JN, Wellington WG, Febvay G (1987) Ecological studies of the leaf-cutting ant, Acromyrmex octospinosus in Guadeloupe. In: CS Logren, FRK Vander Meer (eds): Fire ants and 1eaf-cutting ants: biology and management. 172–183Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Natan C (1997) Rôle de l’exploration et du substrat dans l’organisation du réseau de pistes chez Lasius niger. Mémoire de licence-Université Libre de BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Traniello JFA (1987) Chemical trail systems, orientation, and territorial interactions in the ant Lasius neoniger. J Insect Behav 2: 339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hölldobler B (1974) Home range orientation and territoriality in harvesting ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71: 3274–3277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Detrain C, Pasteels JM (1992) Caste polyethism and collective defense in the ant Pheidole pallidula: the outcome of quantitative differences in recruitment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29: 405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Passera L, Roncin E, Kaufmann B, Keller L (1996) Increased soldier production in ant colonies exposed to intraspecific competition. Nature 379: 630–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nonacs P, Dill LM (1990) Mortality risk versus food quality tradeoffs in a common currency: ant patch preferences. Ecology 71(5): 1886–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Nonacs P, Dill LM (1991) Mortality risk versus food quality trade-offs in ants: patch use over time. Ecol Entomol 16: 73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Deneubourg JL, Goss S, Franks N, Pasteels JM (1989) The blind leading the blind: modeling chemically mediated army ant raid patterns. J Insect Behav 2: 719–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Goss S, Deneubourg JL (1989) The self-organizing clock pattern of Messor pergandei. Insect Soc 36(4): 339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Camazine S, Sneyd J (1991) A mathematical model of colony level nectar source selection by honey bees: self-organization through simple rules. J Theor Biol 149: 547–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Judd TM, Sherman PW (1996) Naked mole-rats recruit colony mates to food sources. Anim Behav 52: 957–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Galef B, Buckley L (1996) Use of foraging trails by Norway rats. Anim Behav 51: 765–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Detrain
  • Jean-Louis Deneubourg
  • Jacques M. Pasteels

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations