Skip to main content
Log in

Food information acquired socially overrides individual food assessment in ants

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

Abstract

Social insects rely on sophisticated communication channels and on individual decision making to achieve efficient foraging behavior. Through social interactions, individuals can acquire information inadvertently provided by a nestmate such as in trophallaxis. During this mouth-to-mouth food exchange, food receivers can perceive the odor of the food delivered by the donor and thus associate this odor with a food reward. Through individual experience, workers are able to perceive characteristic information of the food they have found and to evaluate food quality. Here, we determined which information, social or individual, is prioritized by the carpenter ants Camponotus mus in a foraging context. We exposed receiver ants to a deterrent and harmful food with the same odor they had previously learned in the social context of trophallaxis. We determined on which information individual ants based their decision to forage, whether on their individual evaluation of food quality or on the previously acquired social information. We show that the odor experienced in a trophallactic contact overrides individual food assessment to the extent that ants collect the deterrent food when the odor coincided with that experienced in a social context. If ants were exposed individually during a similar time to a food with the odor and afterwards, they were confronted with the same odor paired with the deterrent substance, and they rejected the deterrent food, contrary to what occurred when the odor was experienced in a social context. These results show that olfactory appetitive experiences in the social context play a fundamental role for subsequent individual foraging decisions. Individuals can acquire information by interacting directly with the environment or through social interactions with other individuals. Individual and social information may induce informational conflicts so that it is crucial to determine when it is worth ignoring one sort of information in favor of the other. Social insects are useful models to address this question: individuals evaluate and learn about their environment and rely on sophisticated communication systems. Here, we show that carpenter ants receiving social instructions, leading them to forage on a toxic food, overcome their natural rejection of this food, despite its noxious effects. Social instructions are, therefore, powerful enough to induce the consumption of food that would be otherwise rejected on the basis of the ants’ individual evaluation. Thus, although eusociality seems to favor sacrificing individual assessments in favor of social information, the resulting ‘social obedience’ may not always be adaptive.

Significance Statement

Individuals can acquire information by interacting directly with the environment, or through social interactions with other individuals. Individual and social information may induce informational conflicts so that it is crucial to determine when it is worth ignoring one sort of information in favor of the other. Social insects are useful models to address this question: individuals evaluate and learn about their environment and rely on sophisticated communication systems. Here we show that carpenter ants receiving social instructions leading them to forage on a toxic food, overcome their natural rejection of this food, despite its noxious effects. Social instructions are, therefore, powerful enough to induce the consumption of food that would be otherwise rejected on the basis of the ants‘ individual evaluation. Thus, although eusociality seems to favor sacrificing individual assessments in favor of social information, the resulting ‘social obedience’ may not always be adaptive.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arenas A, Fernández VM, Farina WM (2007) Floral odor learning within the hive affects honeybees’ foraging decisions. Naturwiss 94:218–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aron S, Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1993) Memory and chemical communication in the orientation of two mass-recruiting ant species. Insect Soc 40(4):369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balbuena MS, Arenas A, Farina WM (2012) Floral scents learned inside the honeybee hive have a long-lasting effect on recruitment. Anim Behav 84(1):77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barta Z, Giraldeau LA (2000) Daily patterns of optimal producer and scrounger use under predation hazard: a state-dependent dynamic game analysis. Am Natur 155(4):570–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biesmeijer J, Seeley T (2005) The use of waggle dance information by honey bees throughout their foraging careers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59(1):133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305(5683):487–491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Detrain C, Deneubourg JL (2008) Collective decision-making and foraging patterns in ants and honeybees. Adv Insect Physiol 35:123–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devaud JM, Blunk A, Podufall J, Giurfa M, Grünewald B (2007) Using local anaesthetics to block neuronal activity and map specific learning tasks to the mushroom bodies of an insect brain. Eu J Neurosc 26(11):3193–3206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy F, Sandoz JC, Giurfa M, Josens R (2006) Individual olfactory learning in Camponotus ants. Anim Behav 72(5):1081–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt D (2014) Molecular mechanisms underlying formation of long-term reward memories and extinction memories in the honeybee (Apis mellifera. Learn Mem 21(10):534–542. doi:10.1101/lm.033118.113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Falibene A, Josens R (2014) Environmental temperature affects dynamics of ingestion in the nectivorous ant Camponotus mus. J Ins Physiol 71:4–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farina WM, Grüter C, Diaz PC (2005) Social learning of floral odours inside the honeybee hive. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272(1575):1923–1928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina WM, Grüter C, Acosta L, Mc Cabe S (2007) Honeybees learn floral odors while receiving nectar from foragers within the hive. Naturwiss 94(1):55–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farina WM, Grüter C, Arenas A (2012) Olfactory information transfer during recruitment in honey bees. In: Galizia CG, Eisenhardt D, Giurfa M (eds) Honeybee neurobiology and behavior: a tribute to Randolf Menzel. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 89–101

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández P (2001) Grado de aceptación y carga de buche alcanzada durante la recolección de cebos tóxicos en la hormiga Camponotus mus. Master Thesis Universidad de San Martín-CIPEIN, Argentina

  • Galef BG Jr (1989) Enduring social enhancement of rats’ preferences for the palatable and the piquant. Appetite 13(2):81–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galef BG Jr (2003) Social learning of food preferences in rodents: a rapidly learned appetitive behavior. Curr Prot Neuroscie 21:8.5D.1–8.5D.8

    Google Scholar 

  • Galef BG Jr (2012) A case study in behavioral analysis, synthesis and attention to detail: social learning of food preferences. Behav Brain Res 231(2):266–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galef BG Jr, Kennett DJ (1987) Different mechanisms for social transmission of diet preference in rat pups of different ages. Develop Psychobiol 20(2):209–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galef BG Jr, Stein M (1985) Demonstrator influence on observer diet preference: analyses of critical social interactions and olfactory signals. Anim Learn Behav 13(1):1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galef BG Jr, Wigmore SW (1983) Transfer of information concerning distant foods: a laboratory investigation of the “information centre” hypothesis. Anim Behav 31(3):748–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galef BG Jr, Kennett DJ, Stein M (1985) Demonstrator influence on observer diet preference: effects of simple exposure and the presence of a demonstrator. Anim Learn Behav 13(1):25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galef BG Jr, Mason JR, Preti G, Bean NJ (1988) Carbon disulfide: a semiochemical mediating socially-induced diet choice in rats. Physiol Behav 42(2):119–124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giurfa M (2007) Behavioral and neural analysis of associative learning in the honeybee: a taste from the magic well. J Comp Physiol A 193:801–824. doi:10.1007/s00359-007-0235-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giurfa M (2013) Cognition with few neurons: higher-order learning in insects. Trends Neurosci 36(5):285–294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter C, Farina WM (2009) The honeybee waggle dance: can we follow the phases? TREE 24(5):242–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter C, Leadbeater E (2014) Insights from insects about adaptive social information use. TREE 29(3):177–184

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter C, Ratnieks FL (2011) Honeybee foragers increase the use of waggle dance information when private information becomes unrewarding. Anim Behav 81(5):949–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter C, Balbuena MS, Farina WM (2008) Informational conflicts created by the waggle dance. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275(1640):1321–1327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter C, Leadbeater E, Ratnieks FLW (2010) Social learning: the importance of copying others. Curr Biol 20(16):683–685

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter C, Czaczkes TJ, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Decision making in ant foragers (Lasius niger) facing conflicting personal and social information. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65(2):141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrieri FJ, d’Ettorre P (2010) Associative learning in ants: conditioning of the maxilla-labium extension response in Camponotus aethiops. J Insect Physiol 56:88–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JF, Fewell JH, Stiller TM, Breed MD (1989) Effects of experience on use of orientation cues in the giant tropical ant. Anim Behav 37(5):869–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard JJ, Laerence Henneman M, Cronin G, Fox JA, Hormiga G (1996) Conditioning of scouts and recruits during foraging by a leaf-cutting ant, Atta colombica. Anim Behav 52:299–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josens R, Eschbach C, Giurfa M (2009) Differential conditioning and long-term olfactory memory in individual Camponotus fellah ants. J Exper. Biol 212(12):1904–1911

    Google Scholar 

  • Klotz HJ, Greenberg L, Shorey HH, Williams DF (1997) Alternative control strategies for ants around homes. J Agric Entomol 14(3):249–257

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Komischke B, Giurfa M, Lachnit H, Malun D (2002) Successive olfactory reversal learning in honeybees. Learn Mem 9(3):122–129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Learn Behav 32:4–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leadbeater E, Chittka L (2007) Social learning in insects—from miniature brains to consensus building. Curr Biol 17(16):703–713

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leadbeater E, Florent C (2014) Foraging bumblebees do not rate social information above personal experience. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68(7):1145–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe S, Farina WM, Josens R (2006) Antennation of nectar-receivers encodes colony needs and food-source profitability in the ant Camponotus mus. Insect Soc 53(3):356–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel R, Müller U (1996) Learning and memory in honeybees: from behaviour to neural substrates. Annl Rev Neurosci 19(1):379–404

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Müssig L, Richlitzki A, Rössler R, Eisenhardt D, Menzel R, Leboulle G (2010) Acute disruption of the NMDA receptor subunit NR1 in the honeybee brain selectively impairs memory formation. J Neurosci 30(23):7817–7825

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Provecho Y, Josens R (2009) Olfactory memory established during trophallaxis affects food search behaviour in ants. J Exp Biol 212(20):3221–3227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quinet Y, Pasteels JM (1996) Spatial specialization of the foragers and foraging strategy in Lasius fuliginosus (Latreille) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae. Insect Soc 43(4):333–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rendell L, Boyd R, Cownden D, Enquist M, Eriksson K, Feldman MW, Fogarty L, Ghirlanda S, Lillicrap T, Laland KN (2010) Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science 328(5975):208–213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Roces F (1990) Olfactory conditioning during the recruitment process in a leaf-cutting ant. Oecologia 83(2):261–262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roces F (1993) Both evaluation of resource quality and speed of recruited leaf-cutting ants (Acromyrmex lundi) depend on their motivational state. Behav Ecol Sociob 33:183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosengren R, Fortelius W (1986) Ortstreue in foraging ants of the Formica rufa group—hierarchy of orienting cues and long-term memory. Insect Soc 33(3):306–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt VM, Schorkopf DLP, Hrncir M, Zucchi R, Barth FG (2006) Collective foraging in a stingless bee: dependence on food profitability and sequence of discovery. Anim Behav 72(6):1309–1317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley TD (1983) Division of labor between scouts and recruits in honeybee foraging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:253–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2000) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, Third edn. WH Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sola F, Falibene A, Josens R (2013) Asymmetrical behavioral response towards two boron toxicants depends on the ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae. J Econ Entomol 106(2):929–938

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stroeymeyt N, Franks NR, Giurfa M (2011) Knowledgeable individuals lead collective decisions in ants. J Exp Biol 214:3046–3054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Traniello JF (1989) Chemical trail systems, orientation, and territorial interactions in the ant Lasius neoniger. J Insect Behav 2(3):339–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Cecilia Estravis for cooperating in several attempts for field assays that finally did not comply with the required conditions of ant motivation. We thank Dr. Luis Calcaterra for his kindness and for allowing us to perform the field assays. We thank Dr. Rodrigo Velarde and two anonymous referees for the critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by Grant PIP 112 201101 00472 (CONICET, Argentina).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roxana Josens.

Additional information

Communicated by M. Giurfa

Roxana Josens and Analia Mattiacci contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Josens, R., Mattiacci, A., Lois-Milevicich, J. et al. Food information acquired socially overrides individual food assessment in ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70, 2127–2138 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2216-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2216-x

Keywords

Navigation