2000
DOI: 10.1007/s002650000223
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The red and the black: habituation and the dear-enemy phenomenon in two desert Pheidole ants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

7
101
1
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
7
101
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Rather, the behavioural variation observed might depend on (i) the context as suggested, for example, for L. austriacus (Steiner et al 2007), or (ii) the experience of workers in previous encounters with non-nestmates (Van Wilgenburg et al 2010), or (iii) environmentally derived cuticular hydrocarbon cues (Liang & Silverman 2000). Furthermore, recent studies regarding correlations between behaviour and, for example, spatial distance revealed contrasting results: in some cases, spatial distance and aggressive behaviour were correlated (Pirk et al 2001; Benedek & Kobori 2014; Frizzi et al 2015; Fournier et al 2016), while in others, no correlation was observed (Langen et al 2000; van Wilgenburg 2007; Martin et al 2012), corroborating the general need for further studies. A correlation known from other studies is one between aggressive behaviour and recognition cues (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Rather, the behavioural variation observed might depend on (i) the context as suggested, for example, for L. austriacus (Steiner et al 2007), or (ii) the experience of workers in previous encounters with non-nestmates (Van Wilgenburg et al 2010), or (iii) environmentally derived cuticular hydrocarbon cues (Liang & Silverman 2000). Furthermore, recent studies regarding correlations between behaviour and, for example, spatial distance revealed contrasting results: in some cases, spatial distance and aggressive behaviour were correlated (Pirk et al 2001; Benedek & Kobori 2014; Frizzi et al 2015; Fournier et al 2016), while in others, no correlation was observed (Langen et al 2000; van Wilgenburg 2007; Martin et al 2012), corroborating the general need for further studies. A correlation known from other studies is one between aggressive behaviour and recognition cues (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Competing Argentine ant colonies will most likely interact with each other at advancing invasion fronts where they are likely to compete for nesting sites and/or food resources that provide similar nestmate recognition cues. In areas where mutually aggressive colonies exploit a common locally abundant food source, two mechanisms may work independently or together to promote fusion of neighboring colonies: diet sharing and intraspecific Bdear enemy^phenomenon, whereby competing animals respond less aggressively to threats by neighbors than strangers (Temeles, 1994;Heinze et al, 1996;Langen et al, 2000). Diet sharing through cooperative use of locally abundant food sources may provide sufficient levels of critical hydrocarbons to alter nestmate recognition and promote fusion of colonies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This seed-harvesting ant defends foraging areas and their nests are often over-dispersed suggesting that colonies may compete for resources (Bernstein, 1979;Bernstein and Gobbel, 1979). In a previous study (Langen et al, 2000) of the same P. xerophylla population we found remarkable variation in aggression levels between colonies. We hypothesized that aggression patterns between P. xerophylla colonies might be modulated by kin recognition mechanisms.…”
Section: Patterns Of Aggression In Pheidole Xerophyllamentioning
confidence: 56%
“…In one species, they were also found to adjust the production of soldiers in response to intraspecifi c competition (Passera et al, 1996). P. xerophylla exhibits considerable variation in aggression levels between colonies and our previous study showed that part of the variation in aggression level was explained by workers from neighboring colonies being less aggressive towards each other than workers from colonies located farther away (Langen et al, 2000). This 'dear enemy phenomenon' was only detectable at short distances (<3m) and probably occurred as a result of habituation from repeated encounters with foragers from neighbor colonies (Langen et al, 2000).…”
Section: Patterns Of Aggression In Pheidole Xerophyllamentioning
confidence: 95%