Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 355–364 | Cite as

Private information conflict: Lasius niger ants prefer olfactory cues to route memory

  • F. B. OberhauserEmail author
  • A. Schlemm
  • S. Wendt
  • T. J. Czaczkes
Original Paper


Foraging animals use a variety of information sources to navigate, such as memorised views or odours associated with a goal. Animals frequently use different information sources concurrently, to increase navigation accuracy or reliability. While much research has focussed on conflicts between individually learned (private) information and social information, conflicts between private information sources have been less broadly studied. Here, we investigate such a conflict by pitting route memory against associative odour cue learning in the ant Lasius niger. Ants were alternatingly trained to find a high-quality scented food source on one arm of a Y-maze, and a differently scented low-quality food source on the opposite arm. After training, ants were presented with a Y-maze in which the high- and low-quality-associated scents were presented on opposite arms than during training. The ants showed an extremely strong preferential reliance on the odour cues, with 100% of ants following the high-quality odour and thus moving towards the side associated with low-quality food. Further experiments demonstrated that ants also learn odour associations more rapidly, requiring only one visit to each odour-quality combination to form a reliable association. Side associations in the absence of odours, by contrast, required at least two visits to each side for reliable learning. While much attention has been focussed on visual route learning in insect navigation and decision-making, our results highlight the overwhelming importance of odour cues in insect path choice.


Route learning Information conflict Private information Odour learning 



We thank Frederic Krieger for collecting part of the data. Ken Cheng and two anonymous reviewers are thanked for providing very helpful comments to the manuscript. Also thanks to Anna-Lena Horsch, Emerenz Rosner, Stefan Ried, Julia Held, Lisa Armenia, Johannes Gössele, Philip Pervan, Michael Schachtner, Kristina Pogorelski, Andreas Lösch, Thomas Stadler, Daniel Mederer, Raphael Sedlmaier, Marie van Vugt, Sophie Große-Kathöfer, Christoph Nagler, Sabrina Zölch, Marcus Igl, Robert Zimmermann, Marc Hauber, and Lina Pedraza for gathering pilot data for this project.


FBO, SW and TJC were funded by a DFG Emmy Noether grant to TJC (Grant no. CZ 237/1-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

10071_2019_1248_MOESM1_ESM.html (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (HTML 1493 KB)
10071_2019_1248_MOESM2_ESM.csv (332 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (CSV 331 KB)


  1. Almeida NGD, Camargo RDS, Forti LC, Lopes JFS (2018) Hierarchical establishment of information sources during foraging decision-making process involving Acromyrmex subterraneus (Forel, 1893) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Rev Bras Entomol 62:36–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aron S, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1988) Visual cues and trail-following idiosyncrasy in Leptothorax unifasciatus: An orientation process during foraging. Ins Soc 35:355–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aron S, Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (1993) Memory and chemical communication in the orientation of two mass-recruiting ant species. Ins Soc 40:369–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft. Google Scholar
  5. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B Met 57:289–300Google Scholar
  6. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buehlmann C, Hansson BS, Knaden M (2013) Flexible weighing of olfactory and vector information in the desert ant Cataglyphis fortis. Biol Lett 9:20130070. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buehlmann C, Graham P, Hansson BS, Knaden M (2015) Desert ants use olfactory scenes for navigation. Anim Behav 106:99–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cammaerts M-C, Rachidi Z, Beke S, Essaadi Y (2012) Use of olfactory and visual cues for orientation by the ant Myrmica ruginodis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 16:45–55Google Scholar
  10. Carthy JD (1951) The Orientation of two allied species of british ant, I. Visual direction finding in Acanthomyops (Lasius) niger. Behaviour 3:275–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chittka L, Skorupski P, Raine NE (2009) Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol Evol 24:400–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collett TS (2000) Path integration in insects. Curr Opin Neurobiol 10:757–762. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collett M (2012) How navigational guidance systems are combined in a desert ant. Curr Biol 22:927–932. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collett M, Collett TS (2000) How do insects use path integration for their navigation? Biol Cybern 83:245–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collett TS, Graham P, Durier V (2003) Route learning by insects. Curr Opin Neurobiol 13:718–725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Day RL, Laland KN (2003) Species difference in adaptive use of public information in sticklebacks. Proc Biol Sci 270:2413–2419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Czaczkes TJ (2018) Using T- and Y-mazes in myrmecology and elsewhere: a practical guide. Ins Soc 65:213–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Czaczkes TJ, Grüter C, Jones SM, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Synergy between social and private information increases foraging efficiency in ants. Biol Lett 7:521–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Czaczkes TJ, Grüter 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 216:188–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Czaczkes TJ, Schlosser L, Heinze J, Witte V (2014) Ants use directionless odour cues to recall odour-associated locations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:981–988. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Czaczkes TJ, Grüter C, Ratnieks FLW (2015) Trail pheromones: an integrative view of their role in social insect colony organization. Annu Rev Entomol 60:581–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Czaczkes TJ, Beckwith JJ, Horsch A-L (2018) Information synergy: Adding unambiguous quality information rescues social information use in ants. bioRxiv 219980.
  23. Danchin E, Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Desmedt L, Baracchi D, Devaud J-M, Giurfa M, d’Ettorre P (2017) Aversive learning of odor-heat associations in ants. J Exp Biol 220:4661–4668. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Devigne C, Detrain C (2002) Collective exploration and area marking in the ant Lasius niger. Ins Soc 49:357–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dupuy F, Sandoz J-C, Giurfa M, Josens R (2006) Individual olfactory learning in Camponotus ants. Anim Behav 72:1081–1091. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dussutour A, Deneubourg J-L, Fourcassie V (2005) Amplification of individual preferences in a social context: the case of wall-following in ants. Proc Biol Sci 272:705–714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Esch HE, Zhang S, Srinivasan MV, Tautz J (2001) Honeybee dances communicate distances measured by optic flow. Nature 411:581. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Evison SEF, Petchey OL, Beckerman AP, Ratnieks FLW (2008) Combined use of pheromone trails and visual landmarks by the common garden ant Lasius niger. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:261–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flatt T, Weisser WW (2000) The effects of mutualistic ants on aphid life history traits. Ecology 81:3522–3529.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forstmeier W, Schielzeth H (2011) Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner’s curse. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:47–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fourcassie V, Beugnon G (1988) How do red wood ants orient when foraging in a three dimensional system? I. Laboratory experiments. Ins Soc 35:92–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Graham P, Cheng K (2009) Which portion of the natural panorama is used for view-based navigation in the Australian desert ant? J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 195:681–689. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gronenberg W (1999) Modality-specific segregation of input to ant mushroom bodies. Brain Behav Evol 54:85–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gronenberg W, López-Riquelme GO (2004) Multisensory convergence in the mushroom bodies of ants and bees. Acta Biol Hung 55:31–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grüter C, Leadbeater E (2014) Insights from insects about adaptive social information use. Trends Ecol Evol 29:177–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grüter C, Balbuena MS, Farina WM (2008) Informational conflicts created by the waggle dance. Proc Biol Sci 275:1321–1327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grüter C, Czaczkes TJ, Ratnieks FLW (2011) Decision making in ant foragers (Lasius niger) facing conflicting private and social information. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:141–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grüter C, Maitre D, Blakey A, Cole R, Ratnieks FLW (2015) Collective decision making in a heterogeneous environment: Lasius niger colonies preferentially forage at easy to learn locations. Anim Behav 104:189–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harrison JF, Fewell JH, Stiller TM, Breed MD (1989) Effects of experience on use of orientation cues in the giant tropical ant. Anim Behav 37:869–871. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hartig F (2018) DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level / mixed) regression models.
  42. Hayashi M, Hojo MK, Nomura M, Tsuji K (2017) Social transmission of information about a mutualist via trophallaxis in ant colonies. Proc Biol Sci. Google Scholar
  43. Heisenberg M (2003) Mushroom body memoir: From maps to models. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hojo MK, Yamamoto A, Akino T, Tsuji K, Yamaoka R (2014) Ants use partner specific odors to learn to recognize a mutualistic partner. PLoS One 9:e86054. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jones S, Czaczkes TJ, Gallager AJ, Oberhauser FB, Bacon JP (2018) Copy when uncertain: Lower light levels result in higher trail pheromone deposition and stronger reliance on pheromone trails in the ant Lasius niger. bioRxiv 473579.
  46. Josens R, Eschbach C, Giurfa M (2009) Differential conditioning and long-term olfactory memory in individual Camponotus fellah ants. J Exp Biol 212:1904–1911. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning, vol 35. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 333–379Google Scholar
  48. Knaden M, Graham P (2016) The sensory ecology of ant navigation: from natural environments to neural mechanisms. Annu Rev Entomol 61:63–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Legge ELG, Wystrach A, Spetch ML, Cheng K (2014) Combining sky and earth: desert ants (Melophorus bagoti) show weighted integration of celestial and terrestrial cues. J Exp Biol 217:4159–4166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lenth R (2018) Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means.
  51. Leuthold RH, Bruinsma O, van Huis A (1976) Optical and pheromonal orientation and memory for homing distance in the harvester termite Hodotermes mossambicus (Hagen). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:127–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Macquart D, Latil G, Beugnon G (2008) Sensorimotor sequence learning in the ant Gigantiops destructor. Anim Behav 75:1693–1701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mailleux AC, Deneubourg J-L, Detrain C (2000) How do ants assess food volume? Anim Behav 59:1061–1069. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Middleton EJT, Reid CR, Mann RP, Latty T (2018) Social and private information influence the decision making of Australian meat ants (Iridomyrmex purpureus). Ins Soc 65:649–656. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oberhauser FB, Czaczkes TJ (2018) Tasting the unexpected: disconfirmation of expectations leads to lower perceived food value in an invertebrate. Biol Lett. Google Scholar
  56. Oberhauser FB, Koch A, Czaczkes TJ (2018) Small differences in learning speed for different food qualities can drive efficient collective foraging in ant colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72:1096. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Partan SR, Marler P (2005) Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. Am Nat 166:231–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pavlov IP (1927) Conditioned reflexes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Provecho Y, Josens R (2009) Olfactory memory established during trophallaxis affects food search behaviour in ants. J Exp Biol 212:3221–3227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria.
  61. Sakiyama T, Gunji YP (2013) Garden ant homing behavior in a maze task based on local visual cues. Ins Soc 60:155–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salo O, Rosengren R (2001) Memory of location and site recognition in the ant Formica uralensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ethology 107:737–752. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwarz S, Schultheiss P, Cheng K (2012) Visual cue learning and odometry in guiding the search behavior of desert ants, Melophorus bagoti, in artificial channels. Behav Process 91:298–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smolla M, Alem S, Chittka L, Shultz S (2016) Copy-when-uncertain: bumblebees rely on social information when rewards are highly variable. Biol Lett. Google Scholar
  65. Søvik E, Perry CJ, Barron AB (2015) Insect reward systems. Genomics, physiology and behaviour of social insects, vol 48. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 189–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Srinivasan MV, Zhang SW, Zhu H (1998) Honeybees link sights to smells. Nature 396:637–638. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Steck K (2012) Just follow your nose: homing by olfactory cues in ants. Curr Opin Neurobiol 22:231–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Steck K, Hansson BS, Knaden M (2011) Desert ants benefit from combining visual and olfactory landmarks. J Exp Biol 214:1307–1312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stroeymeyt N, Franks NR, Giurfa M (2011) Knowledgeable individuals lead collective decisions in ants. J Exp Biol 214:3046–3054. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Webster MM, Laland KN (2008) Social learning strategies and predation risk: minnows copy only when using private information would be costly. Proc Biol Sci 275:2869–2876. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wehner R, Hoinville T, Cruse H, Cheng K (2016) Steering intermediate courses: desert ants combine information from various navigational routines. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 202:459–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wittlinger M, Wehner R, Wolf H (2006) The ant odometer: stepping on stilts and stumps. Science 312:1965–1967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wolf R, Heisenberg M (1991) Basic organization of operant behavior as revealed in Drosophila flight orientation. J Comp Physiol A. Google Scholar
  75. Wolf H, Wehner R (2005) Desert ants compensate for navigation uncertainty. J Exp Biol 208:4223–4230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wystrach A, Beugnon G, Cheng K (2011) Landmarks or panoramas: what do navigating ants attend to for guidance? Front Zool 8:21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wystrach A, Mangan M, Webb B (2015) Optimal cue integration in ants. Proc Biol Sci 282:1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Comparative Economics Laboratory, Department of Zoology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations