Advertisement

Route selection but not trail clearing are influenced by detour length in the Australian meat ants

  • D. Luo
  • C. R. Reid
  • J. C. Makinson
  • M. Beekman
  • T. Latty
Research Article

Abstract

Animals travelling through the environment often face trade-offs between environmental parameters such as risk, travel speed and ease of movement when selecting their routes. Route selection is of particular importance for central place foragers like ants, which collectively and repeatedly use trails to exploit stable sources of food. We investigated how colonies of meat ants (Iridomyrmex purpureus) select and clear trail routes when faced with semi-permeable obstructions (strips of grass turf) that substantially slow their travel speed. Meat ant colonies usually re-routed their trails to avoid obstructions when short strips of turf were laid across existing trails, but always travelled directly across the turf when avoiding the turf would have significantly increased travel time. No significant difference in trail clearing activity was found between the short and long obstruction treatments. On binary mazes, meat ants were equally likely to choose paths obstructed with turf and equal length smooth paths, despite much higher time costs associated with the obstructed route. Colonies always chose the shorter, turf-covered path on mazes where the length of the smooth path was increased by 50%, suggesting that meat ants prioritise the minimisation of travel distance when selecting new trail routes. Meat ant route selection and clearing behaviour may reflect a long-term foraging optimisation strategy whereby colonies pay high short-term costs to minimise long-term travelling costs by selecting relatively direct, short distance trail routes which can be cleared of obstructions over time.

Keywords

Tradeoff Optimisation Ant foraging Route selection Ant trails 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by grants from the Branco Weiss Society in Science foundation and the Australian Research Council Discovery program DP140103643 (both to TL).

References

  1. Acosta FJ, Lopez F, Serrano JM (1993) Branching angles of ant trunk trails as an optimization cue. J Theor Biol 160:297–310.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1993.1020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson C, McShea DW (2001) Intermediate-level parts in insect societies: adaptive structures that ants build away from the nest. Insectes Soc 48:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 159:397–415.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80686-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernadou A, Fourcassié V (2008) Does substrate coarseness matter for foraging ants? An experiment with Lasius niger (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). J Insect Physiol 54:534–542.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2007.12.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bochynek T, Meyer B, Burd M (2017) Energetics of trail clearing in the leaf-cutter ant Atta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71(1):14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buhl J, Hicks K, Miller E, Persey S, Alinvi O, Sumpter D (2009) Shape and efficiency of wood ant foraging networks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:451–460.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0680-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabanes G, van Wilgenburg E, Beekman M, Latty T (2014) Ants build transportation networks that optimize cost and efficiency at the expense of robustness. Behav Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Czaczkes TJ, Heinze J (2015) Ants adjust their pheromone deposition to a changing environment and their probability of making errors. Proc R Soc B 282(1810):20150679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denny AJ, Wright J, Grief B (2001) Foraging efficiency in the wood ant, Formica rufa: is time of the essence in trail following? Anim Behav 62:139–146.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farji-Brener AG, Barrantes G, Laverde O, Fierro-Calderón K, Bascopé F, López A (2007) Fallen branches as part of leaf-cutting ant trails: their role in resource discovery and leaf transport rates in Atta cephalotes. Biotropica 39:211–215.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30045395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farji-Brener AG, Chinchilla F, Umana MN, Ocasio-Torres ME, Chauta-Mellizo A, Acosta-Rojas D, Marinaro S, Curth MD, Amador-Vargas S (2015) Branching angles reflect a trade-off between reducing trail maintenance costs or travel distances in leaf-cutting ants. Ecology 96:510–517.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0220.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fewell JH (1988) Energetic and time costs of foraging in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:401–408.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00294977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forster A, Czaczkes TJ, Warner E, Woodall T, Martin E, Ratnieks FL (2014) Effect of trail bifurcation asymmetry and pheromone presence or absence on trail choice by Lasius niger ants. Ethology 120(8):768–775CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Fourcassié V, Beugnon G (1988) How do red wood ants orient when foraging in a 3 dimensional system. 1. Laboratory experiments. Insectes Soc 35:92–105.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02224141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garnier S, Guerecheau A, Combe M, Fourcassie V, Theraulaz G (2009) Path selection and foraging efficiency in Argentine ant transport networks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1167–1179.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0741-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goss S, Aron S, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1989) Self-organized shortcuts in the Argentine ant. Naturwissenschaften 76:579–581.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00462870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greaves T, Hughes RD (1974) The population biology of the meat ant. Austral J Entomol 13:329–351.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.1974.tb02212.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hölldobler BW, E.O (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holt NC, Askew GN (2012) Locomotion on a slope in leaf-cutter ants: metabolic energy use, behavioural adaptations and the implications for route selection on hilly terrain. J Exp Biol 215:2545–2550.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.057695 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard JJ (2001) Costs of trail construction and maintenance in the leaf-cutting ant Atta columbica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:348–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650000314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson DE et al (2004) Trail geometry gives polarity to ant foraging networks. Nature 432(7019):907–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kranstauber B, Weinzierl R, Wikelski M, Safi K (2015) Global aerial flyways allow efficient travelling. Ecol Lett 18:1338–1345.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12528 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Loreto RG, Hart AG, Pereira TM, Freitas ML, Hughes DP, Elliot SL (2013) Foraging ants trade off further for faster: use of natural bridges and trunk trail permanency in carpenter ants. Naturwissenschaften 100:957–963.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-013-1096-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Oettler J, Schmid VS, Zankl N, Rey O, Dress A, Heinze J (2013) Fermat’s principle of least time predicts refraction of ant trails at substrate borders. PloS One 8(3):e59739CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Perna A, Latty T (2014) Animal transportation networks. J R Soc Interface.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0334 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Pingel TJ (2010) Modeling slope as a contributor to route selection in mountainous areas. Cartography Geog Inf Sci 37(2):137–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  28. Reid CR, Sumpter DJT, Beekman M (2011) Optimisation in a natural system: Argentine ants solve the Towers of Hanoi. J Exp Biol 214:50–58.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.048173 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Roces F, Lighton JRB (1995) Larger bites of leaf-cutting ants. Nature 373:392–393.  https://doi.org/10.1038/373392a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rockwood LL, Hubbell SP (1987) Host-plant selection, diet diversity, and optimal foraging in a tropical leafcutting ant. Oecologia 74:55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00377345 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Shepherd JD (1982) Trunk trails and the searching strategy of a leaf-cutter ant. Atta colombica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11(2):77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shepard ELC, Wilson RP, Rees WG, Grundy E, Lambertucci SA, Vosper SB (2013) Energy landscapes shape animal movement ecology. Am Nat 182:298–312.  https://doi.org/10.1086/671257 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Vittori K, Talbot G, Gautrais J, Fourcassie V, Araujo AFR, Theraulaz G (2006) Path efficiency of ant foraging trails in an artificial network. J Theor Biol 239:507–515.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Vleck D (1979) The energy cost of burrowing by the pocket gopher Thomomys bottae. Physiol Zool 49:391–396Google Scholar
  35. van Wilgenburg E, Elgar M (2007) Colony structure and spatial distribution of food resources in the polydomous meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus. Insectes Soc 54(1):5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wystrach A, Beugnon G, Cheng K (2011) Landmarks or panoramas: what do navigating ants attend to for guidance? Front in Zool 8:21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-8-21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behaviour and Genetics of Social Insects Lab, School of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical SciencesQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.School of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations