Do ants need to be old and experienced to teach?

Franklin, Elizabeth; Robinson, Elva J. H.; Marshall, James A. R.; Sendova‐Franks, Ana B.; Franks, Nigel R.

doi:10.1242/jeb.064618

Cited by 26 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most empirical studies on the effect of experience in social insects have focused on the first aspect, namely on experienced‐based changes in task performance, for example, in foraging (O'Donnell & Jeanne, ; Chittka & Thomson, ; Peat & Goulson, ; Raine & Chittka, ), undertaking (Visscher, ), orientation (Wolf & Wehner, ), nest moving (Langridge et al , ), brood care (Muscedere, Willey & Traniello, ; Weidenmüller et al , , but see Muscedere, Djermoun & Traniello, ) or recruitment (Franklin et al , ; but see Dornhaus, ).…”

Section: Proximate Causes ‐ How Do Interindividual Differences Arise?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the individual response probability, depending on previous experience (Ravary et al , ; Robinson et al , ). Experienced Temnothorax albipennis ants are more likely to engage in tandem runs and more likely to lead tandem runs (Franklin et al , ). Oster & Wilson () suggested that insects that do a job successfully are more likely to repeat that particular type of activity when the opportunity is next presented.…”

Section: Proximate Causes ‐ How Do Interindividual Differences Arise?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interindividual variability in social insects – proximate causes and ultimate consequences

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals within social groups often show consistent differences in behaviour across time and context. Such interindividual differences and the evolutionary challenge they present have recently generated considerable interest. Social insects provide some of the most familiar and spectacular examples of social groups with large interindividual differences. Investigating these within-group differences has a long research tradition, and behavioural variability among the workers of a colony is increasingly regarded as fundamental for a key feature of social insects: division of labour. The goal of this review is to illustrate what we know about both the proximate mechanisms underlying behavioural variability among the workers of a colony and its ultimate consequences; and to highlight the many open questions in this research field. We begin by reviewing the literature on mechanisms that potentially introduce, maintain, and adjust the behavioural differentiation among workers. We highlight the fact that so far, most studies have focused on behavioural variability based on genetic variability, provided by e.g. multiple mating of the queen, while other mechanisms that may be responsible for the behavioural differentiation among workers have been largely neglected. These include maturational, nutritional and environmental influences. We further discuss how feedback provided by the social environment and learning and experience of adult workers provides potent and little-explored sources of differentiation. In a second part, we address what is known about the potential benefits and costs of increased behavioural variability within the workers of a colony. We argue that all studies documenting a benefit of variability so far have done so by manipulating genetic variability, and that a direct test of the effect of behavioural variability on colony productivity has yet to be provided. We emphasize that the costs associated with interindividual variability have been largely overlooked, and that a better knowledge of the cost/benefit balance of behavioural variability is crucial for our understanding of the evolution of the mechanisms underlying the social organization of insect societies. We conclude by highlighting what we believe to be promising but little-explored avenues for future research on how within-colony variability has evolved and is maintained. We emphasize the need for comparative studies and point out that, so far, most studies on interindividual variability have focused on variability in individual response thresholds, while the significance of variability in other parameters of individual response, such as probability and intensity of the response, has been largely overlooked. We propose that these parameters have important consequences for the colony response. Much more research is needed to understand if and how interindividual variability is modulated in order to benefit division of labour, homeostasis and ultimately colony fitness in social insects.

show abstract

Section: Proximate Causes ‐ How Do Interindividual Differences Arise?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Proximate Causes ‐ How Do Interindividual Differences Arise?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interindividual variability in social insects – proximate causes and ultimate consequences

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Groups of individuals repeatedly engage in collective task execution and modify their strategies based on the rewards they receive individually or collectively. This framework is aligned with empirical evidence identifying social interactions and ecology as key factors [18,49,50,36,25,28,11]. This modelling framework provides a large degree of flexibility via simulations, while also allowing for mathematical predictions based on game theory [31].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computational model of task allocation in social insects – ecology and interactions alone can drive specialisation

Chen

Meyer

García

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social insect colonies are capable of allocating their workforce in a decentralised fashion; addressing a variety of tasks and responding effectively to changes in the environment. This process is fundamental to their ecological success, but the mechanisms behind it remain poorly understood. While most models focus on internal and individual factors, empirical evidence highlights the importance of ecology and social interactions. To address this gap we propose a game theoretical model of task allocation. Individuals are characterised by a trait that determines how they split their energy between the two prototypical tasks of foraging and regulation. A viable colony needs to learn to adequately split their energy between the two tasks. We study two different social processes: individuals can learn to play this game by relying exclusively on their own experience, or by relying on the experiences of others via social learning. A computational model allows for direct manipulation of individual interactions and ecology. We find that social organisation can be completely determined by the ecology alone: irrespective of interaction details, weakly specialised colonies in which all individuals tend to both tasks emerge when foraging is cheap; harsher environments, on the other hand, lead to strongly specialised colonies in which each individual fully engages in a single tasks. We compare the outcomes of self-organised task allocation with optimal group performance. Counter to intuition, strongly specialised colonies perform suboptimally, whereas the group performance of weakly specialised colonies is closer to optimal. Differences in social interactions are salient when the colony deals with dynamic environments. Colonies whose individuals rely on their own experience are better able to deal with change. Our computational model is aligned with 1 All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.(which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.The copyright holder for this preprint . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/315846 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 7, 2018; mathematical predictions in tractable limits. We believe this different kind of model is useful in framing relevant and important empirical questions.

show abstract

“…; Franklin et al. ) and social interaction pattern (Powell & Tschinkel ) may also influence the probability that it will perform a given task. Furthermore, a worker's spatial location may affect its rate of encounters with a stimulus and the level of stimulation experienced (Fresneau et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fine Individual Specialization and Elitism among Workers of the Ant Ectatomma tuberculatum for a Highly Specific Task: Intruder Removal

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insect societies are characterized by a relatively sophisticated division of labor; they form tightly knit groups that must effectively exclude non-members from the colony. However, the Neotropical predatory ant Ectatomma tuberculatum can harbor several specific myrmecophiles and, in particular, various eucharitid parasitoid wasp species. Adult wasps eclose in the host nests and are removed by worker ants without harm. Previous observations suggest that only a few workers perform this task. To test this hypothesis, we introduced different types of intruders, live and dead, pentane-washed broad-nosed grain weevil individuals (Caulophilus oryzae) and dead, pentane-washed eucharitids (Dilocantha lachaudii), into laboratory colonies containing individually marked workers. We recorded all encounters and behaviors until the intruders were removed. Certain workers removed intruders more frequently than expected by chance. The number of encounters with an intruder was positively correlated with the number of removals performed by the workers. For each nest, a small group of workers was identified as specialized in intruder removal. A subset of very committed workers in the specialists group that performed up to 57% of removals qualified as hyperspecialists or elite workers. The behavioral sequences differed based on the type and condition of the intruder: the sequence was more complex and included numerous aggressive behaviors (mandibular strikes and attempts at stinging) when workers encountered a live weevil. In contrast, the behavioral sequences with dead, pentane-washed insects were characterized by numerous detections through contact that did not lead to rejection and by the intruders simply being seized and removed from the nest. Overall, the data show that the ants discriminated between live and pentane-washed intruders and adjusted their behavior accordingly. This is the first demonstration in ants of both behavioral specialization and hyperspecialization in intruder removal.

show abstract

Do ants need to be old and experienced to teach?

Cited by 26 publications

References 40 publications

Interindividual variability in social insects – proximate causes and ultimate consequences

Interindividual variability in social insects – proximate causes and ultimate consequences

A computational model of task allocation in social insects – ecology and interactions alone can drive specialisation

Fine Individual Specialization and Elitism among Workers of the Ant Ectatomma tuberculatum for a Highly Specific Task: Intruder Removal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About