Triggering and persistence of trail-laying in foragers of the ant Lasius niger.

In the ant Lasius niger, the ability to ingest their own desired volume is the key criterion that rules the recruiting behaviour of scouts. This volume acts as a threshold triggering the trail-laying response of foragers. In this paper, we show that this desired volume is specific to each individual and is kept constant over successive trips to a food source. This individual specificity contrasts with the variability of all individual desired volumes within the colony. In this study, it is also shown that, among L. niger foragers, 14% never participate in the formation of the chemical pathway and never lay a trail over successive trips. Among the others foragers, interindividual differences in the persistence of trail-laying behaviour over successive trips are observed but do not rely on an individual specialisation, in which some ants would lay a trail more frequently and persistently than other scouts. We discuss how an individual in the foraging behaviour can play an essential role in the regulation of food retrieval dynamics.

[1]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Self-organization mechanisms in ant societies. II: Learning in foraging and division of labor , 1987 .

[2]  Christoph Kleineidam,et al.  Collective control of nest climate parameters in bumblebee colonies , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  J. Pasteels,et al.  Caste differences in behavioral thresholds as a basis for polyethism during food recruitment in the ant,Pheidole pallidula (Nyl.) (Hymenoptera: Myrmicinae) , 1991, Journal of Insect Behavior.

[4]  J. Lawton,et al.  Bracken, Ants and Extrafloral Nectaries. I. the Components of the System , 1984 .

[5]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Trail laying behaviour during food recruitment in the antLasius niger (L.) , 1992, Insectes Sociaux.

[6]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  Information Processing in Social Insects , 1999, Birkhäuser Basel.

[7]  H. Sakata.  Density-dependent predation of the antLasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attended aphidsLachnus tropicalis andMyzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphididae) , 1995, Researches on Population Ecology.

[8]  X. Cerdá,et al.  A behavioural study of transporter workers in Cataglyphis iberica ant colonies (Hymenoptera Formicidae) , 1992 .

[9]  J. Verhaeghe,et al.  Ontogenesis of trail pheromone production and trail following behaviour in the workers ofMyrmica rubra L. (Formicidae) , 1974, Insectes Sociaux.

[10]  B. Hölldobler.  Foraging and spatiotemporal territories in the honey ant Myrmecocystus mimicus wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1981, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[11]  J. Pasteels,et al.  Caste polyethism and collective defense in the ant, Pbeidole pallidula: the outcome of quantitative differences in recruitment , 1992, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[12]  E. Wilson,et al.  Caste and ecology in the social insects. , 1979, Monographs in population biology.

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

[14]  G. Robinson,et al.  Genotypic constraints on plasticity for corpse removal in honey bee colonies , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[15]  J. Fewell,et al.  Colony-level selection effects on individual and colony foraging task performance in honeybees, Apis mellifera L. , 2000, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[16]  C. Detrain,et al.  Collective exploration and area marking in the ant Lasius niger , 2002, Insectes Sociaux.

[17]  J. Erber,et al.  The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) , 1998, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[18]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  A Basis for Spatial and Social Patterns in Ant Species: Dynamics and Mechanisms of Aggregation , 2004, Journal of Insect Behavior.

[19]  J. Pasteels,et al.  Response thresholds to recruitment signals and the regulation of foraging intensity in the ant Myrmica sabuleti (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) , 2000, Behavioural Processes.

[20]  J. Pasteels,et al.  Spatial specialization of the foragers and foraging strategy inLasius fuliginosus (Latreille) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) , 1996, Insectes Sociaux.

[21]  N. Franks,et al.  Social resilience in individual worker ants and its role in division of labour , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  Division of labour between foraging workers of the ponerine antPachycondyla caffraria (Smith) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1992, Insectes Sociaux.

[23]  U. Maschwitz,et al.  Foraging strategies and recruitment behaviour in the European harvester ant Messor rufitarsis (F.) , 1985, Oecologia.

[24]  Journal of Insect Physiology , 1957, Nature.

[25]  G. Robinson.  Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. , 1992, Annual review of entomology.

[26]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  Regulation of ants' foraging to resource productivity , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  R. Jeanne.  Group size, productivity, and information flow in social wasps , 1999 .

[28]  Environmental preference induced experimentally in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1980, Nature.

[29]  J. Fewell,et al.  Models of division of labor in social insects. , 2001, Annual review of entomology.

[30]  Robert E. Page,et al.  The emergence of division of labour in forced associations of normally solitary ant queens , 1999 .

[31]  Joachim Offenberg,et al.  Balancing between mutualism and exploitation: the symbiotic interaction between Lasius ants and aphids , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[32]  K. Hoffmann,et al.  Ant-aphid mutualisms: the impact of honeydew production and honeydew sugar composition on ant preferences , 1999, Oecologia.

[33]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  How do ants assess food volume? , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  W. Godwin.  Article in Press , 2000 .

[35]  J. L. Auclair,et al.  Aphid Feeding and Nutrition , 1963 .

[36]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Memory and chemical communication in the orientation of two mass-recruiting ant species , 1993, Insectes Sociaux.

[37]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  How food type and brood influence foraging decisions of Lasius niger scouts , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[38]  James F. A. Traniello,et al.  Key individuals and the organisation of labor in ants. , 1999 .

[39]  Eamonn B. Mallon,et al.  Information flow, opinion polling and collective intelligence in house-hunting social insects. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[40]  A. Lenoir,et al.  Individual flexibility and choice of foraging strategy in Polyrhachis laboriosa F. Smith (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) , 1999, Insectes Sociaux.

[41]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Dynamics of aggregation in Lasius niger (Formicidae): influence of polyethism , 2004, Insectes Sociaux.

[42]  Deborah M. Gordon,et al.  Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[43]  T. Seeley.  The Wisdom of the Hive , 1995 .

[44]  Charles J. Lumsden,et al.  Ritualized combat and intercolony communication in ants , 1983 .

[45]  H. Sakata.  How an ant decides to prey on or to attend aphids , 1994, Researches on Population Ecology.

[46]  E. Bonabeau,et al.  Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labour in insect societies , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.