Advertisement

Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 66, Issue 4, pp 653–656 | Cite as

Exploratory behavior of Argentine Ants (Linepithema humile) encountering novel areas

  • A. Mahavni
  • E. K. Lessig
  • P. NonacsEmail author
Short Communication

Abstract

When ants encounter a previously unexplored area, a variety of search patterns are possible. Previous studies have found that subsequent individuals tend to follow those that have gone before. This suggests that ants leave signature marks as they walk, independent of having encountered food, and that others recognize these and follow. This experiment tested if Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) also exhibit this pattern of behavior. Series of workers individually navigated through a grid consisting of two consecutive right-versus-left decisions. The resulting pattern does not significantly differ from random choice, as workers are neither more nor less likely to choose the path taken by a previous ant. The time between decisions also does not predict the path chosen. Either L. humile does not mark as they walk or workers do not use such marks in guiding their exploratory behavior. Under natural conditions, this suggests that L. humile is more expansive in initially distributing its workers across novel ground and less likely to have them clump together than species that do follow each other. This has implications for how the relative effectiveness in finding versus exploiting and defending food sites might vary across species.

Keywords

Exploration Foraging Linepithema humile Trail marking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank S. Salazar for help in running the trials and A. Martinez for help in collecting and maintaining the ants.

References

  1. Aron S, Pasteels JM, Deneubourg JL (1989) Trail-laying behaviour during exploratory recruitment in the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Biol Behav 14:207–217Google Scholar
  2. Binz H, Foitzik S, Staab F, Menzel F (2014) The chemistry of competition: exploitation of heterospecific cues depends on the dominance rank in the community. Anim Behav 94:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Czaczkes TJ, Gruter C, Ellis L, Wood E, Ratnieks FLW (2013) Ant foraging on complex trails: route learning and the role of trail pheromones in Lasius niger. J Exp Biol 216:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deneubourg JL, Aron S, Goss S, Pasteels JM (1990) The self-organizing exploratory pattern of the Argentine ant. J Insect Behav 3:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denton KK, Nonacs P (2018) Habitat complexity and predictability effects on finding and collecting food when ants search as cooperative groups. Anim Behav 141:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devigne C, de Biseau JC (2012) The differential response of workers and queens of the ant Lasius niger to an environment marked by workers: ants dislike the unknown. Behav Proc 91:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Devigne C, Detrain C (2006) How does food distance influence foraging in the ant Lasius niger: the importance of home-range marking. Insect Soc 53:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devigne C, Renon AJ, Detrain C (2004) Out of sight but not out of mind: modulation of recruitment according to home range marking in ants. Anim Behav 67:1023–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dussutour A, Nicolis SC, Shephard G, Beekman M, Sumpter DJT (2009) The role of multiple pheromones in food recruitment by ants. J Exp Biol 212:2337–2348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forster A, Czaczkes TJ, Warner E, Woodall T, Martin E, Ratnieks FLW (2014) Effect of trail bifurcation asymmetry and pheromone presence or absence on trail choice by Lasius niger ants. Ethology 120:768–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, Berlin, p 732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson DE, Martin SJ, Holcombe M, Ratnieks FLW (2006) Longevity and detection of persistent foraging trails in Pharaoh’s ants, Monomorium pharaonis (L.). Anim Behav 71:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeanson R, Ratnieks FLW, Deneubourg JL (2003) Pheromone trail decay rates on different substrates in the Pharaoh’s ant, Monomorium pharaonis. Physiol Entomol 28:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nonacs P (1991) Exploratory behavior of Lasius pallitarsis ants encountering novel areas. Insect Soc 38:345–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robinson EJH, Green KE, Jenner EA, Holcombe M, Ratnieks FLW (2008) Decay rates of attractive and repellent pheromones in an ant foraging trail network. Insect Soc 55:246–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sumpter DJT, Beekman M (2003) From nonlinearity to optimality: pheromone trail foraging by ants. Anim Behav 66:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wuest M, Menzel F (2017) I smell where you walked—how chemical cues influence movement decisions in ants. Oikos 126:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yates AA, Nonacs P (2016) Preference for straight-line paths in recruitment trail formation of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile. Insect Soc 63:501–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations