Area-restricted search is the capacity to change search effort adaptively in response to resource encounters or expectations, from directional exploration (global, extensive search) to focused exploitation (local, intensive search). This search pattern is used by numerous organisms, from worms and insects to humans, to find various targets, such as food, mates, nests, and other resources. Area-restricted search has been studied for at least 80 years by ecologists, and more recently in the neurological and psychological literature. In general, the conditions promoting this search pattern are: (1) clustered resources; (2) active search (e.g. not a sit-and-wait predator); (3) searcher memory for recent target encounters or expectations; and (4) searcher ignorance about the exact location of targets. Because area-restricted search adapts to resource encounters, the search can be performed at multiple spatial scales. Models and experiments have demonstrated that arearestricted search is superior to alternative search patterns that do not involve a memory of the exact location of the target, such as correlated random walks or Lévy walks/flights. Area-restricted search is triggered by sensory cues whereas concentrated search in the absence of sensory cues is associated with other forms of foraging. Some neural underpinnings of area-restricted search are probably shared across metazoans, suggesting a shared ancestry and a shared solution to a common ecological problem of finding clustered resources. Area-restricted search is also apparent in other domains, such as memory and visual search in humans, which may indicate an exaptation from spatial search to other forms of search. Here, we review these various aspects of area-restricted search, as well as how to identify it, and point to open questions.

Theories of forgetting highlight 2 active mechanisms through which animals forget prior knowledge by reciprocal disruption of memories. According to "proactive interference," information learned previously interferes with the acquisition of new information, whereas "retroactive interference" suggests that newly gathered information interferes with already existing information. Our goal was to examine the possible effect of both mechanisms in the desert ant Cataglyphis niger, which does not use pheromone recruitment, when learning spatial information while searching for food in a maze. Our experiment indicated that neither proactive nor retroactive interference took place in this system although this awaits confirmation with individual-level learning assays. Rather, the ants' persistence or readiness to search for food grew with successive runs in the maze. Elevated persistence led to more ant workers arriving at the food when retested a day later, even if the maze was shifted between runs. We support this finding in a second experiment, where ant workers reached the food reward at the maze end in higher numbers after encountering food in the maze entry compared to a treatment, in which food was present only at the maze end. This result suggests that spatial learning and search persistence are 2 parallel behavioral mechanisms, both assisting foraging ants. We suggest that their relative contribution should depend on habitat complexity.

The desert horned viper occurs in the dunes of the northwestern Negev desert, Israel. We report on a 2 year study on the viper's behaviour and ecology in its natural habitat. We examined whether the vipers moved faster in a vegetation-dense microhabitat versus an open dune area and detected much slower movement in the former. We nevertheless detected no preference of the vipers for any of the dune areas. We suggest that the vipers trade-off the ease of movement on open areas with prey, which is probably more available in areas with denser vegetation. The activity was higher early in the season and the vipers were mostly active right after sunset, with a second smaller activity peak at sunrise, perhaps searching for burrows to spend the day. Fitting this explanation, movement at the track's end was less directional than at its beginning. We found inter-sexual and between-year differences. For example, females were larger than males in the second year of the study but not in the first one and the population seemed to be smaller in the second year of the study than in its first year. The information we provide on this viper may assist its conservation, as sand dunes are threatened habitats in Israel.

Injury is common in nature resulting, for example, from fighting, partial predation, or the wear of body parts. Injury is costly, expressed in impaired performance, failure in competition, and a shorter lifespan. A survey of the literature revealed the frequent occurrence of injury in ants and its various causes. We examined whether leg- or antenna injury impacts food-discovery time and reduces the likelihood of reaching food in workers of the desert ant Cataglyphis niger. We examined the search-related consequences of injury in groups of either four or eight workers searching for food in a short arena, a long arena, and a maze. We conducted a small field survey to evaluate the prevalence of injury in the studied population. Finally, we compared the survival rates of injured vs. uninjured workers in the laboratory. Injury was common in the field, with almost 9% of the workers collected out of the nest, found to be injured. Injured workers survived shorter than uninjured ones and there was a positive link between injury severity and survival. However, we could not detect an effect of injury on any of the searching-related response variables, neither in the arenas nor in the mazes tested. We suggest that workers that survive such injury are only moderately affected by it.

Animals often search for food more efficiently with experience. However, the contribution of experience to foraging success under direct competition has rarely been examined. Here we used colonies of an individually foraging desert ant to investigate the value of spatial experience. First, we trained worker groups of equal numbers to solve either a complex or a simple maze. We then tested pairs of both groups against one another in reaching a food reward. This task required solving the same complex maze that one of the groups had been trained in, to determine which group would exploit better the food reward. The worker groups previously trained in the complex mazes reached the food reward faster and more of these workers fed on the food than those trained in simple mazes, but only in the intermediate size group. To determine the relative importance of group size versus spatial experience in exploiting food patches, we then tested smaller trained worker groups against larger untrained ones. The larger groups outcompeted the smaller ones, despite the latter's advantage of spatial experience. The contribution of spatial experience, as found here, appears to be small, and depends on group size: an advantage of a few workers of the untrained group over the trained group negates its benefits.