Differential Response of Ant Colonies to Intruders: Attack Strategies Correlate With Potential Threat

Animals are often threatened by predators, parasites, or competitors, and attacks against these enemies are a common response, which can help to remove the danger. The costs of defense are complex and involve the risk of injury, the loss of energy ⁄time, and the erroneous identification of a friend as a foe. Our goal was to study the specificity of defense strategies. We analyzed the aggressive responses of ant colonies by confronting them with workers of an unfamiliar congeneric species, a non-nestmate conspecific, a co-occurring congeneric competitor species, and a social parasite—a slave-making ant. As expected, the latter species, which can inflict dramatic fitness losses to the colony, was treated with most aggression. A co-occurring competitor was also attacked, but the ants used different behaviors in their responses to both enemies. While the slavemaker was attacked by biting and stinging and was approached with spread mandibles, the competitor was dragged, a behavioral strategy only possible if the defending ant is similar in size and strength to the opponent. Non-nestmate conspecifics were treated aggressively as well, but less than the slavemaker and the co-occurring competitor, presumably because they are less easily recognized as enemies. An unfamiliar congeneric species was rarely attacked. This first detailed study comparing the aggressive responses of ant colonies toward slave-making ants to other species posing different threats indicates that the responses of ant colonies are adjusted to the risk each opponent poses to the colony.

[1]  S. Foitzik,et al.  Increased host aggression as an induced defense against slave-making ants , 2011, Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology.

[2]  M. Maruyama,et al.  Differential host defense against multiple parasites in ants , 2011, Evolutionary Ecology.

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

[4]  R. Watson,et al.  The Effect of Queen Number on Nestmate Discrimination in the Facultatively Polygynous Ant Pseudomyrmex pallidus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 2010 .

[5]  J. Heinze,et al.  Apparent Dear‐enemy Phenomenon and Environment‐based Recognition Cues in the Ant Leptothorax nylanderi , 2010 .

[6]  A. Farji-Brener,et al.  Dear enemy phenomenon in the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex lobicornis: behavioral and genetic evidence , 2010 .

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

[8]  R. Elwood,et al.  Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  Frederick R. Adler,et al.  To fight or not to fight: context-dependent interspecific aggression in competing ants , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  T. Giray,et al.  The cost of defense in social insects: insights from the honey bee , 2008 .

[11]  P. D’ettorre,et al.  The mandible opening response: quantifying aggression elicited by chemical cues in ants , 2008, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[12]  A. Hefetz The evolution of hydrocarbon pheromone parsimony in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) - interplay of colony odor uniformity and odor idiosyncrasy. A review , 2007 .

[13]  T. Hirota,et al.  Factors affecting internest variation in the aggressiveness of a polygynous ant, Camponotus yamaokai , 2005 .

[14]  J. Heinze,et al.  A chemical level in the coevolutionary arms race between an ant social parasite and its hosts , 2005, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[15]  K. Jaffe,et al.  On the nestmate-recognition system and territorial marking behaviour in the antCamponotus rufipes , 1984, Insectes Sociaux.

[16]  T. Palmer Wars of attrition: colony size determines competitive outcomes in a guild of African acacia ants , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  S. Powell,et al.  Combat between large derived societies: A subterranean army ant established as a predator of mature leaf-cutting ant colonies , 2004, Insectes Sociaux.

[18]  Aaron M. Ellison,et al.  A Primer of Ecological Statistics , 2004 .

[19]  R. Boulay,et al.  In-nest environment modulates nestmate recognition in the ant Camponotus fellah , 2004, Naturwissenschaften.

[20]  B. Hölldobler,et al.  The kin recognition system of carpenter ants (Camponotus spp.) , 1986, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[21]  M. Zuk,et al.  Immune Defense and Host Life History , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[22]  T. Case,et al.  Effects of colony-level variation on competitive ability in the invasive Argentine ant , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

[23]  D. Goulson,et al.  Polyethism and the importance of context in the alarm reaction of the grass-cutting ant, Atta capiguara , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[24]  J. Herbers,et al.  COLONY STRUCTURE OF A SLAVEMAKING ANT. II. FREQUENCY OF SLAVE RAIDS AND IMPACT ON THE HOST POPULATION , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[25]  J. Herbers,et al.  Nest mate recognition in ants with complex colonies: within- and between-population variation , 2000 .

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

[27]  R. Fénéron,et al.  Effect of body size on aggression in the ant, Cataglyphis niger (Hymenoptera; Formicidae) , 1999 .

[28]  X. Cerdá,et al.  Interference interactions and nest usurpation between two subordinate ant species , 1998, Oecologia.

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

[30]  Ralpoh Tollrian Predator‐Induced Morphological Defenses: Costs, Life History Shifts, and Maternal Effects in Daphnia Pulex , 1995 .

[31]  Robin J Stuart Differences in aggression among sympatric, facultatively polynynous Leptothorax ant species , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[32]  Robin J Stuart Nestmate recognition in leptothoracine ants: testing for effects of queen number, colony size and species of intruder , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  T. Alloway Slave-species ant colonies recognize slavemakers as enemies , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  H. Topoff,et al.  Avoiding predation by army ants: Defensive behaviours of three ant species of the genus Camponotus , 1981, Animal Behaviour.

[35]  T. Alloway Raiding behaviour of two species of slave-making ants, Harpagoxenus americanus (Emery) and Leptothorax duloticus wesson (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1979, Animal Behaviour.