Trail and Territorial Communication in Social Insects

Traniello, James F. A.; Robson, Simon K. A.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1765-8_7

Cited by 63 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 167 publications

(214 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ants are able to optimize their foraging behavior by selecting the most rewarding source, due only to a modulation of the quantity of pheromone laid on a trail (Traniello & Robson, 1995). per 50 cm.…”

Section: Optimum Dosementioning

confidence: 99%

“…No matter which gland they use, the myrmicines investigated to date show a strong variability of intra-and intergeneric trail specificity, ranging from a total or a partial specificity to a complete anonymity of signals (Traniello & Robson, 1995). For example, odor trail pheromones are completely species-specific between T. caespitum Linne, 1758, andT.…”

Section: Specificity Of Trail Pheromonesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trail Pheromones in Pest Control

Mashaly¹,

Ali²,

Al‐Khalifa³

2012

New Perspectives in Plant Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Optimum Dosementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Specificity Of Trail Pheromonesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trail Pheromones in Pest Control

Mashaly¹,

Ali²,

Al‐Khalifa³

2012

New Perspectives in Plant Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Chemical trail signals seldom consist of a single substance produced by a single gland. In fact, trail communication is more commonly based on a multicomponent system, where the secretions of different glands (or a blend of pheromones produced by the same gland) may contribute to the structure of the trail and regulate different behaviours in the process of recruitment (Holldobler & Wilson, 1990;Holldobler, 1995;Traniello & Robson, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, different degrees of trail signal specificity could be influenced by intra-and interspecific competition, orientation and homing mechanisms, territorial recognition and advertisement (Holldobler & Carlin, 1987;Traniello & Robson, 1995). Initial studies on the topic showed a high specificity of trail pheromones (Wilson & Pavan, 1959;Wilson, 1962), but later investigations have clearly shown that this is not a general rule, since within a subfamily (or even within a genus) trail signals may vary widely in specificity (see Attygalle & Morgan, 1985;Holldobler & Wilson, 1990;Traniello & Robson, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioural investigation of trail signals specificity in three sympatric species ofMessorants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae)

Grasso¹,

Mori²,

Moli³

2002

Italian Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trail signals specificity of three sympatric species of Messor ants CM. capitatus, M. minor, and M. wasmanni) was investigated in the laboratory. Interspecific trail-following tests showed that workers of each species are able to recognize and follow artificial trails obtained from the Dufour's gland secretions of the others. These results indicate that signals mediating trail-following behaviour in these harvesting ants are not strictly species-specific. However, using a series of preference tests, some differences among the species were found. The differences and similarities in trailfollowing responses and, ultimately, in the chemical communication system of such sympatric ants are discussed taking into account their ecological implications.

show abstract

“…The goal is to demonstrate how group-level behaviour may arise as an emergent property of the collective actions of individuals, by specifying the rules of only individual interactions (Deneubourg & Goss 1989;Kawata & Toquenaga 1994;Taylor & Jefferson 1994;Theraulez et al 1995). Such simulations can play a critical role in inquiry, but their use and interpretation remain equivocal (Pattee 1989;Maddox 1995;Traniello & Robson 1995). Prior criticism of 'foraging for work' has been directed at the simulation's unrealistic assumptions, contradiction by experiments designed to test it, and confusion and misrepresentation over caste theory (Robinson et al 1994;Calderone 1995;Calderone & Page 1996;Traniello & Rosengaus 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%