Foraging behaviour affects nest architecture in a cross-species comparison of ant nests

Animals construct and inhabit nests that can exhibit dramatic intra- and interspecific variation due to differences in behaviour, the biotic and abiotic environment, and evolutionary history. In ants, variation in nest architecture reflects both differences in ecology and in the collective behaviour of the colonies that live in the nests. Each component of the nest (such as depth, and the number, size and connectivity of chambers) reflects selective pressures for different functions, or structural constraints that are imposed by the environment or evolutionary history. To determine potential drivers of nest structure variation in subterranean nests, we performed a meta-analysis of measures of published ant nests to compare different structural elements within and across species. We complemented this survey with 42 nest casts of two closely related species. We quantified nest features that can potentially impact ant foraging behaviour and examined whether phylogeny or foraging strategy are better explanatory variables for the variation we observed. We found that foraging strategy better explained nest features than evolutionary history. Our work reveals the importance of ecology in shaping nest structure and provides an important foundation for future investigations into the selective pressures that have shaped ant nest architecture. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The evolutionary ecology of nests: a cross-taxon approach’.

[1]  K. Drager Field-Ready Methods for Casting Soil Biopores , 2022, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[2]  L. Fusani,et al.  Sneaky copulations by subordinate males suggest direct fitness benefits from male–male associations in spotted bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus maculatus) , 2022, Ethology : formerly Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie.

[3]  Jill T Oberski First Phylogenomic Assessment of the Amphitropical New World Ant Genus Dorymyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), a Longstanding Taxonomic Puzzle , 2022, Insect Systematics and Diversity.

[4]  J. Purcell,et al.  Ant nest architecture is shaped by local adaptation and plastic response to temperature , 2021, Scientific Reports.

[5]  W. Tschinkel Ant Architecture , 2021 .

[6]  N. Pinter-Wollman,et al.  Modularity and connectivity of nest structure scale with colony size , 2021, bioRxiv.

[7]  C. Detrain,et al.  The effect of nest topology on spatial organization and recruitment in the red ant Myrmica rubra , 2020, The Science of Nature.

[8]  C. Detrain,et al.  Nest Entrances, Spatial Fidelity, and Foraging Patterns in the Red Ant Myrmica rubra: A Field and Theoretical Study , 2020, Insects.

[9]  C. Detrain,et al.  Multiple nest entrances alter foraging and information transfer in ants , 2020, Royal Society Open Science.

[10]  C. Detrain,et al.  What’s going on at the entrance? A characterisation of the social interface in ant nests , 2019, Behavioural Processes.

[11]  Christina L. Kwapich,et al.  The non-additive effects of body size on nest architecture in a polymorphic ant , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Interdisciplinary approaches for uncovering the impacts of architecture on collective behaviour , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  C. Detrain,et al.  Impact of soil contamination on the growth and shape of ant nests , 2018, Royal Society Open Science.

[14]  A. Suarez,et al.  Correlates and Consequences of Worker Polymorphism in Ants. , 2018, Annual review of entomology.

[15]  A. Moreira,et al.  Discovering the Giant Nest Architecture of Grass-Cutting Ants, Atta capiguara (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) , 2017, Insects.

[16]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  The impact of architecture on collective behaviour , 2017, Nature Ecology &Evolution.

[17]  C. Moreau,et al.  Defensive traits exhibit an evolutionary trade‐off and drive diversification in ants , 2017, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  A. Smith,et al.  Quantifying mating success of territorial males and sneakers in a bower-building cichlid fish , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[19]  Noa Pinter-Wollman,et al.  Nest architecture shapes the collective behaviour of harvester ants , 2015, Biology Letters.

[20]  W. Tschinkel The architecture of subterranean ant nests: beauty and mystery underfoot , 2015 .

[21]  Noa Pinter-Wollman,et al.  Persistent variation in spatial behavior affects the structure and function of interaction networks , 2015 .

[22]  S. Valverde,et al.  The Role of Colony Size on Tunnel Branching Morphogenesis in Ant Nests , 2014, PloS one.

[23]  A. Dejean,et al.  Nesting habits shape feeding preferences and predatory behavior in an ant genus , 2014, Naturwissenschaften.

[24]  Deborah M. Gordon,et al.  Fast and Flexible: Argentine Ants Recruit from Nearby Trails , 2013, PloS one.

[25]  Martin C. Stumpe,et al.  Harvester ants use interactions to regulate forager activation and availability , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  Kerstin Pingel,et al.  50 Years of Image Analysis , 2012 .

[27]  Kevin W Eliceiri,et al.  NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[28]  Liam J. Revell,et al.  phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things) , 2012 .

[29]  W. Tschinkel The Nest Architecture of Three Species of North Florida Aphaenogaster Ants , 2011, Journal of insect science.

[30]  S. Hasiotis,et al.  NEOICHNOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE TRACES AND BURROWING BEHAVIORS OF THE WESTERN HARVESTER ANT POGONOMYRMEX OCCIDENTALIS (INSECTA: HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE): PALEOPEDOGENIC AND PALEOECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS , 2010 .

[31]  J. Santamarina,et al.  Ant tunneling—a granular media perspective , 2010 .

[32]  W. Tschinkel Methods for Casting Subterranean Ant Nests , 2010, Journal of insect science.

[33]  N. Blüthgen,et al.  Food and shelter: how resources influence ant ecology , 2010 .

[34]  Deborah M. Gordon,et al.  Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior , 2010 .

[35]  A. Dornhaus,et al.  Foraging and Defence Strategies , 2010 .

[36]  John W. Wenzel,et al.  :Built by Animals: The Natural History of Animal Architecture , 2008 .

[37]  P. S. Ward,et al.  The ant subfamily Pseudomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): phylogeny and evolution of big‐eyed arboreal ants , 2005 .

[38]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Nest excavation in ants: group size effects on the size and structure of tunneling networks , 2004, Naturwissenschaften.

[39]  W. Tschinkel The nest architecture of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius , 2004, Journal of insect science.

[40]  S. Brady Evolution of the army ant syndrome: The origin and long-term evolutionary stasis of a complex of behavioral and reproductive adaptations , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  M. Kaspari,et al.  The size–grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants , 1999 .

[42]  J. Trager A revision of Conomyrma (Hymenoptera; Formicidae) from the southeastern United States, especially Florida, with keys to the species. , 1988 .

[43]  OUP accepted manuscript , 2022, Behavioral Ecology.

[44]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[45]  M. Lanan Spatiotemporal resource distribution and foraging strategies of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). , 2014, Myrmecological news.

[46]  J. R. King,et al.  Body size, colony size, abundance, and ecological impact of exotic ants in Florida's upland ecosystems , 2007 .

[47]  Gábor Csárdi,et al.  The igraph software package for complex network research , 2006 .