Ants adjust their tool use strategy in response to foraging risk

Zhou, Aiming; Du, Yuzhe; Chen, Jian

doi:10.1111/1365-2435.13671

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A third possibility is that there might be biophysical restrictions on whether an ant can collect a liquid drop between her mandibles. It is likely that small body size makes interactions with liquid droplets more dangerous due to the strong forces of surface tension [40]. We observed that ants make a ‘hasty’ motion at the end of the extraction of the droplet.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Diacammaants adjust liquid foraging strategies in response to biophysical constraints

Fujioka

Marchand

LeBoeuf

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ant foragers need to provide food to the rest of the colony, which often requires food transport over long distances. Foraging for liquid is especially challenging because it is difficult to transport and share. Many social insects store liquid food inside the crop to transport it to the nest, and then regurgitate this fluid to distribute it to nestmates through a behaviour called trophallaxis. Some ants instead transport fluids with a riskier behaviour—holding a drop of liquid between the mandibles through surface tension—after which the ant shares this droplet with nestmates without ingestion or regurgitation in a behaviour called pseudotrophallaxis. Here, we hypothesized that ants optimise their liquid-collection approach depending on food quality and biophysical properties. Working with a ponerine ant that uses both trophallaxis and pseudotrophallaxis, we investigated why each liquid-collection behaviour might be favored under different conditions by measuring handling time and liquid viscosity and reaction to food quality (i.e., sugar concentration and viscosity) using a viscosity additive. We found that ants could collect more liquid food per unit time by mandibular grabbing than by drinking. At high viscosities, which in nature correspond to high sugar concentrations, ants switched their liquid collection method to mandibular grabbing in response to viscosity, and not to sweetness. In addition, mandibular grabbing of liquid food allowed ants to carry more sugar per unit time than drinking. Our results demonstrate that ants change not only their feeding preference but also their transport and sharing methods according to viscosity—a proxy for sugar concentration in nature—optimising the mass of sugar returned to the nest over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Diacammaants adjust liquid foraging strategies in response to biophysical constraints

Fujioka

Marchand

LeBoeuf

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By crushing ants in nectar, we exposed bees to all the external and internal chemicals that they might encounter from ants drowned in nectar. Drowning while foraging for liquids is a risk ants (Zhou et al 2020(Zhou et al , 2022 and other insects face (e.g., Robertson 1946;Smith et al 2017;Thien et al 2009). Even in the absence of the physical threat of ants, these chemical stimuli elicited similar responses by bees to when live ants were present.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drowning is a foraging risk ants face (Zhou et al 2020(Zhou et al , 2022, potentially polluting the nectar quality or taste. To simulate this situation, 50 frozen ants (0.018 g ± 0.000 g) were placed into a tissue homogenizer and crushed into 5mL of 40.6% sucrose solution.…”

Section: Ants In Nectarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bumble Bee Avoidance of Argentine Ants and Associated Chemical Cues

Miner

Rankin

2023

J Insect Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees provide pollination services in both agricultural and natural ecosystems. However, invasive ants that exploit floral nectar in these landscapes can compete with bees for resources, with implications for pollinator resource acquisition, plant fitness, and, ultimately, ecosystem function. While interference competition has been described between bees and nectivorous, non-pollinator antagonists, the behaviors and sensory mechanisms involved remain largely unresolved. Here, we studied the mechanisms by which invasive Argentine ants influence bee nectar foraging behavior. In a series of laboratory assays, we assessed the foraging behavior of bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) in response to live Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) or to a subset of ant chemical cues. Bees were clearly deterred by live ants at a nectar source: they consumed less, fed less frequently, and fed for a shorter duration when live ants were present. Bees were also deterred by a combination of olfactory and gustatory ant chemical cues, consistent with both innate and learned avoidance behavior. Naïve and ant-experienced bees were deterred through chemosensation of ants, feeding less from nectar infused with ant chemicals as compared to nectar lacking ants or their associated cues. Some ant-experienced bees showed a unique behavior, displaying aggression toward ants as well as in response to ant chemicals. The marked effects of this invasive ant on bee foraging behavior—through physical interaction and chemical cues—highlights Argentine ants as a serious pest whose control should be considered when developing pollinator conservation and management strategies.

show abstract

“…into liquid food, and then they carry the food-soaked tools back to the nest (e.g., Fellers and Fellers 1976;Banschbach et al 2006). The most typical representatives of this behavior are the members of the genus Aphaenogaster (Fellers and Fellers 1976;Tanaka and Ono 1978;Fowler 1982;McDonald 1984;Agbogba 1985;Cerdá et al 1988;Banschbach et al 2006;Lőrinczi 2014;Maák et al 2017;Lőrinczi et al 2018;Maák et al 2020;Módra et al 2020), but it has also been observed in Messor barbarus (Durán 2011), Messor structor (Módra et al 2017), Novomessor albisetosus (McDonald 1984;Wetterer et al 2002), Pogonomyrmex badius (Morrill 1972), Solenopsis invicta (Barber et al 1989;Qin et al 2019), and Solenopsis richteri (Zhou et al 2020). Contrary to the views of some authors (e.g., Durán 2011), this behavior completely satisfies the criteria of tool use (see Módra et al 2020) according to the currently accepted definition, which is "… the exertion of control over a freely manipulable external object (the tool) with the goal of (1) altering the physical properties of another object, substance, surface or medium (the target, which may be the tool user or another organism) via a dynamic mechanical interaction, or (2) mediating the flow of information between the tool user and the environment or other organisms in the environment" (St. Amant and Horton 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparison of foraging tool use in two species of myrmicine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many ant species are known to exhibit foraging tool use, during which ants place various debris items (e.g., pieces of soil, leaves, pine needles, etc.) into liquid food, and then they carry the food-soaked tools back to the nest. In the present study, we compared the tool-using behavior in captive colonies of two closely related myrmicine ants with different feeding preferences: Aphaenogaster subterranea, an omnivorous species, and Messor structor, a mainly granivorous seed-harvester species. We supplied foraging ants with honey-water baits and six types of objects they could use as tools: sand grains, small soil grains, large soil grains, pine needles, leaves, and sponges. We found that the workers of A. subterranea both dropped more tools into honey-water baits and retrieved more of these tools than the workers of M. structor. While A. subterranea preferred smaller tools over larger ones, tool preferences for M. structor did not differ significantly from random. In addition, tool dropping was significantly faster in A. subterranea, and both the dropping and retrieving of tools began significantly earlier than in M. structor. For Aphaenogaster species that regularly utilize and compete for liquid food sources, the ability to efficiently transport liquid food via tools may be more important than it is for seed-harvester ants. Dropping tools into liquids, however, may still be useful for seed-harvester species as a means to supplement diet with liquid food during periods of seed shortage and also to serve as a means of getting rid of unwanted liquids close to the nest.

show abstract

Ants adjust their tool use strategy in response to foraging risk

Cited by 11 publications

References 61 publications

Diacammaants adjust liquid foraging strategies in response to biophysical constraints

Diacammaants adjust liquid foraging strategies in response to biophysical constraints

Bumble Bee Avoidance of Argentine Ants and Associated Chemical Cues

Comparison of foraging tool use in two species of myrmicine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About