An empirical test of Lanchester's square law: mortality during battles of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta

Lanchester's models of attrition describe casualty rates during battles between groups as functions of the numbers of individuals and their fighting abilities. Originally developed to describe human warfare, Lanchester's square law has been hypothesized to apply broadly to social animals as well, with important consequences for their aggressive behaviour and social structure. According to the square law, the fighting ability of a group is proportional to the square of the number of individuals, but rises only linearly with fighting ability of individuals within the group. By analyzing mortality rates of fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) fighting in different numerical ratios, we provide the first quantitative test of Lanchester's model for a non-human animal. Casualty rates of fire ants were not consistent with the square law; instead, group fighting ability was an approximately linear function of group size. This implies that the relative numbers of casualties incurred by two fighting groups are not strongly affected by relative group sizes and that battles do not disproportionately favour group size over individual prowess.

[1]  Thomas W. Lucas,et al.  Fitting Lanchester equations to the battles of Kursk and Ardennes , 2004 .

[2]  S. Porter.  Fast, Accurate Method of Measuring Ant Head Widths , 1983 .

[3]  N. Franks,et al.  Lanchester battles and the evolution of combat in ants , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  Trevor Nevitt Dupuy,et al.  Understanding War: History and a Theory of Combat , 1998 .

[5]  Mike Mesterton-Gibbons,et al.  Lanchester's attrition models and fights among social animals , 2003 .

[6]  Andrew B. Whitford.  Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach , 2003, Journal of Politics.

[7]  Dean S. Hartley.  A mathematical model of attrition data , 1995 .

[8]  T. McGlynn.  Non‐native Ants Are Smaller than Related Native Ants , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[9]  W. Tschinkel,et al.  Territory area and colony size in the fire ant Solenopsis invicta , 1995 .

[10]  G. Markin,et al.  Foraging Territories of Imported Fire Ants , 1971 .

[11]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[12]  R. Heinsohn.  Group territoriality in two populations of African lions , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  L. Morrison.  Mechanisms of interspecific competition among an invasive and two native fire ants , 2000 .

[14]  N. R. Franks,et al.  Chimpanzees and the mathematics of battle , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Walter R. Tschinkel,et al.  Colony growth and the ontogeny of worker polymorphism in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta , 1988, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[16]  Eldridge S. Adams,et al.  TERRITORY SIZE AND SHAPE IN FIRE ANTS: A MODEL BASED ON NEIGHBORHOOD INTERACTIONS , 1998 .

[17]  Robert L. Helmbold,et al.  Validating Lanchester's square law and other attrition models , 1995 .

[18]  M. Whitehouse,et al.  Ant wars: combat strategies, territory and nest defence in the leaf-cutting ant Atta laevigata , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  S. Chib,et al.  Understanding the Metropolis-Hastings Algorithm , 1995 .

[20]  Caste and ecology in the social insects , 1979 .

[21]  E. Adams.  Experimental analysis of territory size in a population of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta , 2003 .

[22]  Ronald D. Fricker,et al.  Attrition Models of the Ardennes Campaign , 1998 .