How do ants assess food volume?

Mailleux, Anne-Catherine; Deneubourg, Jean‐Louis; Detrain, Claire

doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1396

Cited by 123 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ant species can distinguish between different resources (Abrams, 1975;Savolainen, 1991;Sanders & Gordon, 2000Kay, 2002Kay, , 2004Bihn et al, 2008;Kaspari et al, 2009), although resource assessment was only known to take place after contact with the food item (de Biseau & Pasteels, 1994;Detrain & Deneubourg, 1997;Robson & Traniello, 1998;Mailleux et al, 2000;Lenoir, 2002;Cassill, 2003). This study is the first to address whether ants can detect food characteristics prior to contact and whether such food detection influences exploitative competition between species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Scouts assess resource desirability and quantity upon encounter with food items (Fourcassié & Traniello, 1993;de Biseau & Pasteels, 1994;Robson & Traniello, 1998;Mailleux et al, 2000;Lenoir, 2002;Cassill, 2003). If quality is low, scouts will continue searching (de Biseau & Pasteels, 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is less clear how frequently directed searches rely on cues directly associated with the resource itself. There is ample evidence that foragers can and do assess resource desirability and quantity upon encounter with food items and that they communicate resource characteristics to the nest (de Biseau & Pasteels, 1994;Detrain & Deneubourg, 1997;Robson & Traniello, 1998;Mailleux et al, 2000;Lenoir, 2002;Cassill, 2003). However, the degree to which sensory assessment operates to direct the search is not well-characterised.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Resource discovery in ant communities: do food type and quantity matter?

Pearce-Duvet

Feener

2010

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 1. Omnivorous woodland ant species trade off between the ability to find and behaviourally control food resources. Dominant species can limit the ability of subordinates to harvest certain food items. However, subordinate species, by being faster discoverers, could gain access to such food items by arriving at them first.2.In this study, we tested the hypothesis that resource-directed discovery occurs in ant communities and that good discoverers preferentially discover high value resources. We did this by measuring time to discovery and the number of discoveries of high and low levels of two resource types, crickets and honey, for species occurring in Texas and Arizona woodland ant communities.3. Ants discovered resources roughly 10 times faster in Texas than in Arizona. They discovered crickets more rapidly than honey in both communities, but there was no difference in the discovery of different resource levels. We also found that species were not biased in their discovery of different resource types or levels.4. These results provide indirect evidence that discovery is directed by resource stimuli but that such directedness does not impact interspecific exploitative competition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Resource discovery in ant communities: do food type and quantity matter?

Pearce-Duvet

Feener

2010

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Longer giving-up times at poorer sources may reflect the searching behaviour of ants, which often circled the source and kept on searching for additional food. Such a phenomenon has been described in the ants P. clavata (Breed et al 1996a) and Lasius niger (Mailleux et al 2000), for workers that found small discrete nectar volumes below their maximal loading capacity, which could be readily collected without waiting. In our study, however, the patches found by experienced foragers were depleted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Ants may leave a patch by using the simplest rule of collecting nectar until the crop is filled, but even under ad libitum conditions, workers often return to the nest with partially filled crops (Josens & Roces 2000;Mailleux et al 2000), with the extent of filling being a function of food quality (Josens et al 1998). Workers of the species Camponotus sericius and C. compressus, which forage on extrafloral nectar or on honeydew secreted by aphids, decide about the quality of a food source by sampling only a part of it, so that they abandon plants if food of poor quality is found in the sampled region, or they continue foraging upon finding food of good quality (Ganeshaiah & Veena 1988;Veena & Ganeshaiah 1991).…”

Section:  2003 the Association For The Study Of Animal Behaviour Pumentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of nectar flow rate and memory for patch quality in the ant Camponotus rufipes

Schilman

Roces

2003

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory and field insights into the dynamics and behavior of Argentine ants, Linepithema humile, feeding from hydrogels

Cabrera

Fontan

Hoffmann

et al. 2021

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Hydrogels that have absorbed a liquid containing a toxicant are a novel form of bait-delivery for ant control.Here, we study the abilities of Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) workers to imbibe liquid from hydrogels. We quantified feeding behavior with: (i) hydrogels containing different sucrose concentrations (20, 30, 40 and 50% w/w); (ii) hydrogels versus liquid droplets; and (iii) hydrogel age (air exposure time). We also performed a field assay to assess visits by L. humile and other ant species to hydrogels. RESULTS: Ingested volume and feeding time decreased with increasing sucrose concentrations, but the number and duration of pauses were similar. Feeding from hydrogels was slower than from a liquid droplet and ants imbibed less liquid and fed for shorter times from hydrogels. Feeding time increased with hydrogel age, whereas ingested volume decreased and approached zero after 120 min under laboratory conditions. In the field, ants attended the hydrogels during the full 120-min study period. When L. humile workers found a hydrogel, they monopolized it to the exclusion of other ant species. L. humile occupied and dominated hydrogels predominantly in shaded locations.CONCLUSION: Hydrogels with sucrose concentrations no greater than 30% appear best for liquid uptake by L. humile. Hydrogels not in direct sunlight will have greater attendance by L. humile and, therefore, less attendance by non-target ant species. Shady and humid places may prolong the longevity of hydrogels, which would imply higher intakes.

show abstract

How do ants assess food volume?

Cited by 123 publications

References 23 publications

Resource discovery in ant communities: do food type and quantity matter?

Resource discovery in ant communities: do food type and quantity matter?

Assessment of nectar flow rate and memory for patch quality in the ant Camponotus rufipes

Laboratory and field insights into the dynamics and behavior of Argentine ants, Linepithema humile, feeding from hydrogels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About