‘Lazy’ in nature: ant colony time budgets show high ‘inactivity’ in the field as well as in the lab

Charbonneau, Daniel; Hillis, Neil; Dornhaus, Anna

doi:10.1007/s00040-014-0370-6

Cited by 52 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For every second of analyzed video, each ant has one of these behaviors attributed to it. (Similar to Charbonneau et al 2015) Class…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, if only a few workers are very inactive, then they may fulfill some unrecognized critical function. Finding adaptive explanations for inactivity is particularly relevant because high levels of inactivity are likely not an artifact of simplified living conditions in the lab (Charbonneau et al 2015).…”

Section: Communicated By L Kellermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Colonies were housed in artificial nests that emulate the small rock crevices they inhabit in the field (Charbonneau et al 2015). The artificial nests consist of a 2-mm-thick piece of cardboard sandwiched between two glass slides (76.2×50.8 mm).…”

Section: Colony Collection and Housingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Workers ‘specialized’ on inactivity: Behavioral consistency of inactive workers and their role in task allocation

Charbonneau

Dornhaus

2015

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social insect colonies are often considered to be highly efficient collective systems, with division of labor at the root of their ecological success. However, in many species, a large proportion of a colony's workers appear to spend their time completely inactive. The role of this inactivity for colony function remains unclear. Here, we investigate how inactivity is distributed among workers and over time in the ant Temnothorax rugatulus. We show that the level of inactivity is consistent for individual workers, but differs significantly among workers, that is, some workers effectively specialize on 'inactivity'. We also show that workers have circadian rhythms, although intra-nest tasks tend to be performed uniformly across the whole day. Differences in circadian rhythms, or workers taking turns resting (i.e., working in shifts), cannot explain the observation that some workers are consistently inactive. Using extensive individual-level data to describe the overall structure of division of labor, we show that 'inactive workers' form a group distinct from other task groups. Hierarchical clustering suggests that inactivity is the primary variable in differentiating both workers and tasks. Our results underline the importance of inactivity as a behavioral state and the need for further studies on its evolution.

show abstract

“…For every second of analyzed video, each ant has one of these behaviors attributed to it. (Similar to Charbonneau et al 2015) Class…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communicated By L Kellermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Workers ‘specialized’ on inactivity: Behavioral consistency of inactive workers and their role in task allocation

Charbonneau

Dornhaus

2015

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Levels 4–7 were categorised as aggressive. The behaviours scored were adapted from those used in similar experimental designs (Giraud et al 2002; Steiner et al 2003; Boulay et al 2007; Charbonneau et al 2015). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Alpine ant’s behavioural polymorphism: monogyny with and without internest aggression inTetramorium alpestre

Krapf

Russo

Arthofer

et al. 2017

Ethology Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social structure influences animal societies on various levels (e.g., relatedness, behaviour). In ants, both the number of matings per queen and the number of queens per colony can vary strongly. While workers from both monogynous and polygynous colonies often fight fiercely, in supercolonies (an extreme form of polygyny comprising thousands of queens in spatially separated but interconnected nests), non-nestmates interact peacefully. Studies on social and behavioural polymorphism within ant species can help elucidate their influence on genetic diversity and behaviour and the factors triggering variation in social structure and behaviour. Here, we reveal a behavioural and social polymorphism comprising monogyny with and without internest aggression in Tetramorium alpestre sampled in Tyrol, Austria. The social polymorphism is based on genetic and behavioural evidence and contrasts with the supercolonial organisation known from another location in Austria (Carinthia), 150 km away. Microsatellite genotyping using eight polymorphic loci revealed monogyny-monandry and high intranest pairwise relatedness. Interestingly, various experimental one-on-one worker encounters revealed only occasional aggressive behaviour between monogynous colonies, and thus a behavioural polymorphism. Mantel tests revealed a significant negative correlation between spatial distance and relatedness, while worker behaviour was not correlated with relatedness or spatial distance. These results indicate that behaviour might be influenced by other factors – for example, the experience of workers, ecological, chemical, and/or genetic factors not characterised in this study. However, workers distinguished nestmates from non-nestmates also when aggression was lacking. We hypothesise an adaptive value of reduced aggression. We speculate that the non-aggressive and partly aggressive encounters observed represent different options in the social structure of T. alpestre, the non-aggressiveness possibly also promoting supercolony development. The social and behavioural polymorphisms observed offer opportunities to identify the factors triggering these changes and thus further explore the behavioural and social polymorphism of this ant species.

show abstract

“…In an interesting article in this issue, Charbonneau and colleagues [3] note that most of the observations of lazy workers in eusocial insect colonies have been obtained from laboratory colonies. This brings into question the validity of the lazy worker concept as differences in the demand for work in the laboratory, as compared to field settings, may create behavioral artifacts in division of labor among workers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are workers lazy?

Breed

2015

Insect. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Lazy’ in nature: ant colony time budgets show high ‘inactivity’ in the field as well as in the lab

Cited by 52 publications

References 21 publications

Workers ‘specialized’ on inactivity: Behavioral consistency of inactive workers and their role in task allocation

Workers ‘specialized’ on inactivity: Behavioral consistency of inactive workers and their role in task allocation

An Alpine ant’s behavioural polymorphism: monogyny with and without internest aggression inTetramorium alpestre

Why are workers lazy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About