Mechanisms of dispersed central-place foraging in polydomous colonies of the Argentine ant

Many species of ants occupy multiple nests, a condition known as polydomy. Because of their decentralized structure, polydomous colonies may be removed from some of the constraints associated with classic central-place foraging. We used laboratory and field experiments to assess the mechanisms involved in dispersed central-place foraging in polydomous colonies of the Argentine ant Linepithema humile, a widespread invasive species. Both in the laboratory and in the field, Argentine ants established new nests at sites located near food. Laboratory colonies of L. humile redistributed workers, brood and resources among nests in response to the spatial heterogeneity of food resources. In addition, laboratory colonies formed recruitment trails between nests in the context of foraging, providing a mechanism for the transport of material between nests. This highly flexible system of allocating nests, workers and brood throughout a colony's foraging area potentially increases foraging efficiency and competitive ability. The importance of polydomy as a determinant of competitive ability is underscored by its prevalence among ecologically dominant ants, including most, if not all, highly invasive species. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

[1]  E O Wilson,et al.  The Sociogenesis of Insect Colonies , 1985, Science.

[2]  David F. Williams.  Ant Invaders. (Book Reviews: Exotic Ants. Biology, Impact, and Control of Introduced Species.) , 1994 .

[3]  E. Wilson.  The Insect Societies , 1974 .

[4]  G. Markin.  Foraging Behavior of the Argentine Ant in a California Citrus Grove , 1970 .

[5]  D. Holway.  Effect of Argentine ant invasions on ground-dwelling arthropods in northern California riparian woodlands , 1998, Oecologia.

[6]  D. Gordon,et al.  Effects of abiotic factors on the distribution and activity of the invasive Argentine ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1998 .

[7]  M. Hutchings,et al.  The effects of nutrient availability on foraging in the clonal herb Glechoma hederacea , 1987 .

[8]  D. Gordon.  The organization of work in social insect colonies , 1996, Nature.

[9]  K. Linsenmair,et al.  Polydomy and the organization of foraging in a colony of the Malaysian giant ant Camponotus gigas (Hym. / Form.) , 1998, Oecologia.

[10]  H. Kroon,et al.  Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by spatial division of labour in a clonal plant. , 1996 .

[11]  M. Hutchings,et al.  Patchy habitats, division of labour and growth dividends in clonal plants. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  S. Porter,et al.  Invasion of Polygyne Fire Ants Decimates Native Ants and Disrupts Arthropod Community , 1990 .

[13]  M. Hutchings,et al.  Clonal integration and plasticity in foraging behaviour in Glechoma hederacea , 1987 .

[14]  D. Davidson.  The role of resource imbalances in the evolutionary ecology of tropical arboreal ants , 1997 .

[15]  S. Mori,et al.  Ant-plant interactions. , 1991 .

[16]  H. Kroon,et al.  Morphological plasticity in clonal plants: the foraging concept reconsidered. , 1995 .

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

[18]  Eldridge S. Adams,et al.  Boundary disputes in the territorial ant Azteca trigona: effects of asymmetries in colony size , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  L. Keller.  Evolutionary implications of polygyny in the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): an experimental study , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[20]  George P. Markin,et al.  The Seasonal Life Cycle of the Argentine Ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in Southern California , 1970 .

[21]  D. Clark,et al.  The Tramp Ant Wasmannia auropunctata: Autecology and Effects on Ant Diversity and Distribution on Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos' , 1982 .

[22]  J. Smallwood.  The Effect of Shade and Competition on Emigration Rate in the Ant Aphaenogaster Rudis , 1982 .

[23]  M. Brown.  Nest relocation and encounters between colonies of the seed-harvesting ant Messor andrei , 1999, Insectes Sociaux.

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

[25]  R. Ydenberg,et al.  Modelling social insect foraging. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[27]  N. Franks,et al.  Social Evolution in Ants , 2019 .

[28]  C J Lumsden,et al.  Territorial strategies in ants. , 1980, Science.

[29]  P. Nonacs,et al.  Patch sampling behaviour and future foraging expectations in Argentine ants, Linepithema humile , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[30]  F. Acosta,et al.  Parallels between the foraging strategies of ants and plants. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[32]  R. E. Cook.  Clonal Plant Populations , 1983 .

[33]  S. Skaife,et al.  THE ARGENTINE ANT , 1955 .

[34]  A. Andersen.  A classification of Australian ant communities, based on functional groups which parallel plant life , 1995 .

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