Walking the line: search behavior and foraging success in ant species

Finding food is one of the most important tasks an animal faces. Although the impact of behavior and morphology on individual foraging success is well characterized, an understanding of the extent of interspecific differences in these traits as well as their influence on resource competition is lacking. Temperate ant communities represent an ideal opportunity for examining how search behavior and morphology affect a species' ability to find food first because ant species demonstrate both a wide range of foraging patterns and intense interspecific competition for food resources. For 10 species across 2 communities, species-specific speed and turning rate were quantified by filming their foraging behavior in nature; we also measured the ratio of leg length to body length of their foragers. Food discovery ability was determined by observing which species found baits first when they were present in the immediate environment. Our results show that foraging patterns are species specific, suggesting that search behavior is an important component of niche separation in ant communities. We also suggest that ant species maximize discovery success at the community level using both behavioral and morphological mechanisms. Good discoverers moved in straighter lines, thereby possibly increasing their chances of finding food, and had longer legs relative to their body size, increasing their efficiency of movement. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

[1]  Martina Mittlböck,et al.  Careful use of pseudo R‐squared measures in epidemiological studies , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  D. Kramer,et al.  Interference competition, payoff asymmetries, and the social relationships of central place foragers , 1986 .

[3]  D. Davidson,et al.  Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade‐off , 1998 .

[4]  D. Feener,et al.  Fast food in ant communities: how competing species find resources , 2011, Oecologia.

[5]  D. Feener,et al.  When trade-offs interact: balance of terror enforces dominance discovery trade-off in a local ant assemblage. , 2007, The Journal of animal ecology.

[6]  N. Franks,et al.  Evolution of allometries in the worker caste of Dorylus army ants , 2005 .

[7]  A. Déjean,et al.  Trajets d'approvisionnement a partir d'un nid central chez la fourmiSerrastruma lujae (Formicidae: Myrmicinae) , 1989, Insectes Sociaux.

[8]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  The optimal search path in a patchy environment , 1990 .

[9]  Lucas N Joppa,et al.  Understanding movement data and movement processes: current and emerging directions. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[10]  D. Feener,et al.  Foraging in the seed-harvester ant genus Pogonomyrmex: are energy costs important? , 1995, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[11]  R. Wehner,et al.  Pinpointing food sources: olfactory and anemotactic orientation in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. , 2000, The Journal of experimental biology.

[12]  Stanley R. Jones,et al.  Resource collecting abilities of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) compared with those of three sympatric Texas ants. , 1990 .

[13]  H. Stanley,et al.  Optimizing the success of random searches , 1999, Nature.

[14]  E. Revilla,et al.  A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[16]  P. David,et al.  Coexistence in a metacommunity: the competition-colonization trade-off is not dead. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[17]  S. Hubbell,et al.  Defense of food supply by eusocial colonies , 1987 .

[18]  R. M. Weseloh.  Paths of Formica neogagates (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on Tree and Shrub Leaves: Implications for Foraging , 2000 .

[19]  S. G. Vail,et al.  Foraging patterns in three sympatric forest ant species, Prenolepis imparis, Paratrechina melanderi and Aphaenogaster rudis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1980 .

[20]  Deborah M. Gordon,et al.  The expandable network of ant exploration , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[21]  Michael Zimmerman,et al.  Optimal foraging: A case for random movement , 1979, Oecologia.

[22]  E. LeBrun,et al.  Who is the top dog in ant communities? Resources, parasitoids, and multiple competitive hierarchies , 2005, Oecologia.

[23]  D. Ambrose,et al.  Influence of hunger level and prey density on searching behaviour of the reduviid predator Rhynocoris marginatus (Fabricius) (Het., Reduviidae) , 2003 .

[24]  Gerhard Hoffmann,et al.  The random elements in the systematic search behavior of the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri , 1983, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[25]  P. Jaisson.  Social insects in the tropics. , 1983 .

[26]  A. Andersen.  Sampling communities of ground‐foraging ants: Pitfall catches compared with quadrat counts in an Australian tropical savanna , 1991 .

[27]  P. A. Prince,et al.  Lévy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses , 1996, Nature.

[28]  A. Dejean,et al.  INTENSIVE FOOD SEARCHING IN HUMID PATCHES: ADAPTATION OF A MYRMICINE ANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS , 2001 .

[29]  M K Tourtellot,et al.  The problem of movelength and turn definition in analysis of orientation data. , 1991, Journal of theoretical biology.

[30]  N. Franks.  Teams in social insects: group retrieval of prey by army ants (Eciton burchelli, Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1986, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[31]  G. Gebauer,et al.  Stable N-isotope signatures of central European ants – assessing positions in a trophic gradient , 2007, Insectes Sociaux.

[32]  James W. Haefner,et al.  Proximate cues for predator searching: a quantitative analysis of hunger and encounter rate in the ladybird beetle, Coccinella septempunctata , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  G. Pyke,et al.  Are animals efficient harvesters? , 1978, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  Leo Polansky,et al.  Disentangling the effects of forage, social rank, and risk on movement autocorrelation of elephants using Fourier and wavelet analyses , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  S. L. Lima,et al.  SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR LANDSCAPE‐LEVEL INTERPATCH MOVEMENTS , 1999 .

[36]  H. Larralde,et al.  Lévy walk patterns in the foraging movements of spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) , 2003, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

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

[38]  W. J. Bell.  Searching Behaviour , 1990, Chapman and Hall Animal Behaviour Series.

[39]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  The Effect of Competition on Foraging Activity in Desert Rodents: Theory and Experiments , 1990 .

[40]  F. Ballantyne,et al.  Shaking a leg and hot to trot: the effects of body size and temperature on running speed in ants , 2008 .

[41]  T. Benton,et al.  Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics , 2005, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[42]  Full,et al.  Many-legged maneuverability: dynamics of turning in hexapods , 1999, The Journal of experimental biology.

[43]  John R. B. Lighton,et al.  Inter-individual variation in energy cost of running and loading in the seed-harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex maricopa , 1995 .

[44]  Bertrand Schatz,et al.  Olfactive detection of fig wasps as prey by the ant Crematogaster scutellaris (Formicidae; Myrmicinae) , 2003, Naturwissenschaften.

[45]  D. Holway,et al.  COMPETITIVE MECHANISMS UNDERLYING THE DISPLACEMENT OF NATIVE ANTS BY THE INVASIVE ARGENTINE ANT , 1999 .

[46]  L. Morrison.  Community organization in a recently assembled fauna: the case of Polynesian ants , 1996, Oecologia.

[47]  R. D. Harkness,et al.  Central place foraging by an ant (Cataglyphis bicolor Fab.): a model of searching , 1985, Animal Behaviour.

[48]  D. Feener,et al.  Resource discovery in ant communities: do food type and quantity matter? , 2010 .

[49]  E. LeBrun,et al.  Maintaining Diversity in an Ant Community: Modeling, Extending, and Testing the Dominance‐Discovery Trade‐Off , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[50]  C. Holden.  Inching Toward Movement Ecology , 2006, Science.

[51]  T. McMahon,et al.  Energetic Cost of Generating Muscular Force During Running: A Comparison of Large and Small Animals , 1980 .

[52]  P. J. Lester,et al.  Habitat complexity facilitates coexistence in a tropical ant community , 2006, Oecologia.

[53]  P. Kareiva,et al.  Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk , 1983, Oecologia.

[54]  D. McShea,et al.  Individual versus social complexity, with particular reference to ant colonies , 2001, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[55]  Zollikofer.  STEPPING PATTERNS IN ANTS - INFLUENCE OF BODY MORPHOLOGY , 1994, The Journal of experimental biology.

[56]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[57]  X. Cerdá,et al.  Prey Size Reverses the Outcome of Interference Interactions of Scavenger Ants , 1998 .

[58]  M. Westoby,et al.  Bivariate line‐fitting methods for allometry , 2006, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[59]  G. Theraulaz,et al.  A new test of random walks in heterogeneous environments , 2005, Naturwissenschaften.

[60]  M. Cody.  Finch flocks in the Mohave desert. , 1971, Theoretical population biology.

[61]  E. Wilson.  The relation between caste ratios and division of labor in the ant genus Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1984, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[62]  J. Fryxell,et al.  Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[63]  W. J. Bell.  Searching Behaviour: The Behavioural Ecology of Finding Resources , 1991 .

[64]  J. Orivel,et al.  Prey capture behavior of the arboreal ponerine ant Pachycondyla goeldii (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). , 2000 .

[65]  E. Revilla,et al.  Trends and missing parts in the study of movement ecology , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[66]  Ran Nathan,et al.  An emerging movement ecology paradigm , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[67]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  Optimal sinuosity in central place foraging movements , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[68]  J. Lighton,et al.  Curvilinear allometry, energetics and foraging ecology: a comparison of leaf-cutting ants and army ants , 1988 .

[69]  Donat Agosti,et al.  Ants : standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity , 2000 .

[70]  Frederic Bartumeus,et al.  Erratum: Optimizing the Encounter Rate in Biological Interactions: Lévy versus Brownian Strategies [Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 097901 (2002)] , 2002 .

[71]  William F. Fagan,et al.  Search and navigation in dynamic environments – from individual behaviors to population distributions , 2008 .

[72]  J. H. Fellers,et al.  Interference and Exploitation in a Guild of Woodland Ants , 1987 .

[73]  R. Matthews,et al.  Ants. , 1898, Science.

[74]  F R Adler,et al.  Information Collection and Spread by Networks of Patrolling Ants , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[75]  Amanda C. Niehaus,et al.  The fast and the fractalous: speed and tortuosity trade off in running ants , 2007 .

[76]  J. Traniello.  Foraging Strategies of Ants , 1989 .

[77]  F Bartumeus,et al.  Optimizing the encounter rate in biological interactions: Lévy versus Brownian strategies. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[78]  Rudolf Jander,et al.  Ecological aspects of spatial orientation , 1975 .