Using T- and Y-mazes in myrmecology and elsewhere: a practical guide
T- and Y-mazes are powerful tools for studying the behavioural ecology and cognition of animals, especially ants. Such mazes are cheap, easy to deploy, and very flexible, allowing diverse subjects to be studied. These include cue and route learning, pheromone following, and testing for cognitive abilities such as associative and concept learning. However, while simple, the use of bifurcation mazes has many pitfalls, especially for ants which deposit pheromone trails. In this methods primer, I discuss the strengths and limitations of using bifurcation mazes to study ant behaviour, and outline some of the pitfalls to be avoided. I also provide a description of a suggested Y-maze design, and methodological details about using Y-mazes to study associative learning, route learning, and trail pheromone following. Although the description of the uses of bifurcation mazes, and their pitfalls, is not exhaustive, this methods primer hopes to be of use to both beginners and more experienced researchers in designing and deploying bifurcation mazes in their research. While primarily aimed at myrmecologists, much of the content of this methods primer will be broadly applicable to animal behavioural research.
KeywordsY-maze T-maze Bifurcation Methods Experimental design
Many thanks to Abel Bernadou, Florian Menzel, Roxanna Josens, Flavio Roces, and two anonymous referees for comments on previous versions of this manuscript, and to Joachim Ruther for discussing the appropriate methods for testing putative trail pheromones. TJC was supported by an Emmy Noether group leader Grant from the Feutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Grant number CZ 237/1-1.
- Becker G, Mannesmann R (1968) Untersuchungen über das Verhalten von Termiten gegenüber einigen spurbildenden Stoffen. J Appl Entomol 62:399–436Google Scholar
- Cherrett JM (1972) Chemical aspects of plant attack by leaf-cutting ants. Phytochemical ecology. Academic Press, London, pp 13–24Google Scholar
- Edwards JP, Pinniger DB (1978) Evalutiaon of four isomers of 3-butyl-5-methloctahydroindoliz, a component of the trail pheromone of pharaoh’s ant, Monomorium pharaonis. Ann Appl Biol 89:395–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1978.tb05965.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fourcassié V, Deneubourg JL (1994) The dynamics of collective exploration and trail-formation in Monomorium pharaonis: experiments and model. Physiol Entomol 19:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3032.1994.tb01055.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Helanterä H, Walsh CJ, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Effect of foraging trail straightness on U-turning probability in forager Pharaoh’s ants. Sociobiology 57:445–449Google Scholar
- Josens R, Mattiacci A, Lois-Milevicich J, Giacometti A (2016) Food information acquired socially overrides individual food assessment in ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2216-x
- Koywiwattrakul P, Thompson GJ, Sitthipraneed S, Oldroyd BP, Maleszka R (2005) Effects of carbon dioxide narcosis on ovary activation and gene expression in worker honeybees, Apis mellifera. J Insect Sci 5(1)Google Scholar
- Ladevese B, Giurfa M, Josens R et al (2007) Conditionnement de Messor sanctus par la presence/absence d’un faible courant d’air. Union Internationle pour l’etude des insectes sociaux, Toulouse. http://uieis.univ-tours.fr/colloques/2007_UIEIS_Toulouse/2007_UIEIS_Toulouse_Resumes.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
- Lubbock J (1884) Ants, bees and wasps—the international scientific series, vol Xl. Kegan Paul, London, p 436Google Scholar
- Nicolas G, Sillans D (1989) Immediate and latent effects of carbon dioxide on insects. Annu Rev Entomol 34:97–116. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.34.010189.000525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Popp S, Buckham-Bonnett P, Evison SEF et al (2017) No evidence for tactile communication of direction in foraging Lasius ants. Insectes Soc 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-017-0583-6
- Stuart RJ (1986) Use of polyester fibers to mark small leptothoracine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 59:566–568Google Scholar