Skip to main content
Log in

Seed density in monospecific and mixed patches affects individual and collective foraging in ants

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Insectes Sociaux Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Granivore ant foraging should respond to seed density through changes in individual and collective behaviour. Overall seed availability and the presence of multiple types of seeds in a patch may affect these behaviours. We presented ants with three species of seeds in different mixtures and in two seasons contrasting in seed availability to assess differences in probabilities of seed collection. Removal rates were recorded every 2 h. We fitted a model that uses data on seed removal to disentangle the individual (probability that an ant removes a seed of species i, pi) and collective (number of active ants h) components of foraging. We found that removal increased with seed density due to increased pi values and recruitment of new ants. This suggests that ants evaluated resource density, collecting seeds only from dense patches. This was confirmed by observations. The presence of additional seeds of other species in the seed mixture elicited recruitment but had nearly no effect on pi. This may be observed if different ants prefer a seed species and ignore the rest. In the low seed-availability season, h increased, ants travelled longer distances, and foraging was directed to the most profitable seed-patches. This selectivity for some seed-patches during times of scarcity may appear surprising. It is true that, by abandoning low-density patches, individuals may reduce their seed acquisition rates, but also increase collective gains by forming trails only to dense patches. This may compensate for the large collective investments in the form of more scouts that explore longer distances.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams PA, Matsuda H (2004) Consequences of behavioral dynamics for the population dynamics of predator-prey systems with switching. Popul Ecol 46:13–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey K, Polis G (1987) An experimental analysis of optimal and central place foraging by the harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex californicus. Oecologia 72:440–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckers R, Deneubourg J-L, Goss S, Pasteels JM (1990) Collective decision making through food recruitment. Insect soc 37:258–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverly BD, McLendon H, Nacu S, Holmes S, Gordon DM (2009) How site fidelity leads to individual differences in the foraging activity of harvester ants. Behav Ecol 20:633–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolek S, Wittlinger M, Wolf H (2012) What counts for ants? How return behaviour and food search of Cataglyphis ants are modified by variations in food quantity and experience. J Exp Biol 215:3218–3222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boulay R, Fedriani JM, Manzaneda AJ, Cerdá X (2005) Indirect effects of alternative food resources in an ant–plant interaction. Oecologia 144:72–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Reichman O, Davidson DW (1979) Granivory in desert ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 10:201–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnell R (2019) lhs: Latin hypercube samples. R package version 1.0.1

  • Case TJ (2000) An illustrated guide to theoretical ecology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist TO, MacMahon JA (1991) Foraging patterns of Pogonomyrmex occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a shrub–steppe ecosystem: the roles of temperature, trunk trails, and seed resources. Environ Entomol 20:265–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Biseau J, Pasteels J (1994) Regulated food recruitment through individual behavior of scouts in the ant, Myrmica sabuleti (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Insect Behav 7:767–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deneubourg JL, Aron S, Goss S, Pasteels J, Duerinck G (1986) Random behaviour, amplification processes and number of participants: how they contribute to the foraging properties of ants. Phys D 22:176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detrain C, Tasse O, Versaen M, Pasteels J (2000) A field assessment of optimal foraging in ants: trail patterns and seed retrieval by the European harvester ant Messor barbarus. Insect soc 47:56–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornhaus A, Powell S (2010) Foraging and defence strategies. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 210–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornhaus A, Klügl F, Oechslein C, Puppe F, Chittka L (2006) Benefits of recruitment in honey bees: effects of ecology and colony size in an individual-based model. Behav Ecol 17:336–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferster B, Traniello JF (1995) Polymorphism and foraging behavior in Pogonomyrmex badius (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): worker size, foraging distance, and load size associations. Environ Entomol 24:673–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan TP, Letendre K, Burnside WR, Fricke GM, Moses ME (2012) Quantifying the effect of colony size and food distribution on harvester ant foraging. PLoS ONE 7:e39427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier DA et al (2012) AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Method Soft 27:233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM (2019) The ecology of collective behavior in ants. Annu Rev Entomol 64:35–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM, Mehdiabadi NJ (1999) Encounter rate and task allocation in harvester ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:370–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss S, Beckers R, Deneubourg J-L, Aron S, Pasteels JM (1990) How trail laying and trail following can solve foraging problems for ant colonies. In: Hughes RN (ed) Behavioural mechanisms of food selection. Springer, pp 661–678

  • Hecker JP, Moses ME (2015) Beyond pheromones: evolving error-tolerant, flexible, and scalable ant-inspired robot swarms. Swarm Intell US 9:43–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilborn R, Mangel M (1997) The ecological detective: confronting models with data. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ (1985) Harvester ant foraging and plant species distribution in annual grassland. Oecologia 67:519–523

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holder K, Polis G (1987) Optimal and central-place foraging theory applied to a desert harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex californicus. Oecologia 72:440–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B (1976) Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B, Möglich M (1980) The foraging system of Pheidole militicida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Soc 27:237–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd TM (2006) Relationship between food stores and foraging behavior of Pheidole ceres (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entom Soc Am 99:398–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiviniemi K, Eriksson O (1999) Dispersal, recruitment and site occupancy of grassland plants in fragmented habitats. Oikos 86(2):241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunin WE (1994) Density-dependent foraging in the harvester ant Messor ebeninus: two experiments. Oecologia 98:328–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (2010) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb A, Ollason J (1994) Site fidelity in foraging wood-ants Formica aquilonia Yarrow and its influence on the distribution of foragers in a regenerating environment. Behav Process 31:309–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Letendre K, Moses ME (2013) Synergy in ant foraging strategies: memory and communication alone and in combination. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 41–48

  • Li L, Peng H, Kurths J, Yang Y, Schellnhuber HJ (2014) Chaos-order transition in foraging behavior of ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:8392–8397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loke P-Y, Lee C-Y (2004) Foraging behavior of field populations of the big-headed ant, Pheidole megacephala (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 43:211–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, CRC, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Monnahan CC, Kristensen K (2018) No-U-turn sampling for fast Bayesian inference in ADMB and TMB: introducing the adnuts and tmbstan R packages. PLoS ONE 13:e0197954

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nickle DA, Neal TM (1972) Observations on the foraging behavior of the southern harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. Fla Entomol 55:65–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 72:164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostoja SM, Schupp EW, Klinger R (2013) Seed harvesting by a generalist consumer is context-dependent: interactive effects across multiple spatial scales. Oikos 122:563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plowes NJ, Colella T, Johnson RA, Hölldobler B (2014) Chemical communication during foraging in the harvesting ants Messor pergandei and Messor andrei. J Comp Physiol A 200:129–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q rev biol 52:137–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissing SW, Pollock GB (1984) Worker size variability and foraging efficiency in Veromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:121–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traniello JF (1989) Foraging strategies of ants. Ann Rev Entomol 34:191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oudenhove L, Billoir E, Boulay R, Bernstein C, Cerdá X (2011) Temperature limits trail following behaviour through pheromone decay in ants. Naturwissenschaften 98:1009–1017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt JT, Smith WA, Grantham RA, Wright RE (2003) Effects of temperature and season on foraging activity of red imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Oklahoma. Environ Entomol 32:447–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitford WG (1978) Foraging in seed-harvester ants Pogonomyrmex spp. Ecology 59:185–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilby A, Shachak M (2000) Harvester ant response to spatial and temporal heterogeneity in seed availability: pattern in the process of granivory. Oecologia 125:495–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (2003) Pheidole in the New World: a dominant, hyperdiverse ant genus, vol 1. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf H, Wittlinger M, Bolek S (2012) Re-visiting of plentiful food sources and food search strategies in desert ants. Front Neurosci 6:102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (PAPIIT IN220514 and IN212618).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Martorell.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

García-Meza, D., Andresen, E., Ríos-Casanova, L. et al. Seed density in monospecific and mixed patches affects individual and collective foraging in ants. Insect. Soc. 68, 81–92 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-020-00800-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-020-00800-6

Keywords

Navigation