Use of radio-tagging to map spatial organization and social interactions in insects

Moreau, Mathieu; Arrufat, Patrick; Latil, Gérard; Jeanson, Raphaël

doi:10.1242/jeb.050526

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An automated identification portal at specific checkpoints would make an excellent research tool for behavioural challenge monitoring in fish, like the equipment already developed for insects (Decourtye et al, 2011;Moreau et al, 2011), but this would require the RFID reader to be waterproof, and improvements in the detection range and speed, which are currently weak points because they require a close positioning of the fish for reading.…”

Section: Possible Development Of the Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The smallest PIT tags are approximately 12mm in length, 2mm in diameter and 95mg in mass, making them unsuitable for use on specimens of less than 60mm (Baras et al, 2000), but new products are also appearing such as the 'tiny' version of the PIT tag (8mm long, 1.4mm diameter but still 34mg). A very recent product, which has been used to document behaviour in insects [ants (Moreau et al, 2011) and bees (Decourtye et al, 2011)] is the radio frequency identification (RFID) microtag (1mm in diameter and 6mm in length, with a mass of ~10mg). These microtags are suitable for zebrafish size but have not, to our knowledge, ever been used on fish.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Electronic individual identification of zebrafish using radio frequency identification (RFID) microtags

Cousin

Daouk

Péan

et al. 2012

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAlthough individual electronic tagging using passive integrated acoustic (PIT) tags is established, it is mainly for fish >60mm in length and is unsuitable for fish of <30mm, like zebrafish. We used radio frequency identification (RFID) microtags (1mm in diameter and 6mm in length, with a mass of ~10mg) to individually identify juvenile zebrafish (length 16-42mm, mass 138-776mg) for the first time, and studied the effects of intracoelomic implantation on fish survival and microtag loss, growth, spawning and exploratory behaviour. After 5.5months, both high survival (82%) and low microtag loss (11%) were achieved. The smallest surviving fish weighed 178mg, and success in microtag reading was 73% for the size class 350-450mg (26mm). Greater success was achieved when fish were larger at the time of tagging but no negative effects on growth were observed for any size class and some tagged fish spawned. No significant differences in behavioural responses could be detected between tagged fish and untagged controls after 2months. Overall, the results suggest that the tagging method is highly suitable for fish as small as zebrafish juveniles. We think this method will provide significant advances for researchers of the ever-growing fish model community and more generally for all small-fish users. Tagging is essential when one needs to identify fish (e.g. particular genotypes with no external cue), to run longitudinal monitoring of individual biological traits (e.g. growth) or to repeat assays with the same individual at discrete points in time (e.g. behaviour studies). Such a method will find applications in physiology, genetics, behaviour and (eco)toxicology fields. Supplementary material available online at

show abstract

Section: Possible Development Of the Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electronic individual identification of zebrafish using radio frequency identification (RFID) microtags

Cousin

Daouk

Péan

et al. 2012

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In MRR studies, the ability to accurately identify released insects is essential. Techniques that have been used to mark insects include the use of mutilation (for example, by wing clipping (Walker & Wineriter 1981), paints (Chen et al 2006), tracers such as inks (Franzen & Nilsson 2007), active or passive transponder tags (Gui et al 2011), radio-labelling (Barnes 1959;Moreau et al 2011), natural mutations (Weldon & Meats 2007), and genetic markers (Lushai & Loxdale 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MarkingBactrocera dorsalis(Diptera: Tephritidae) with Fluorescent Pigments: Effects of Pigment Colour and Concentration

Manrakhan

Weldon

2017

African Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Daylight fluorescent pigment powders are frequently used to self-mark tephritid flies that are released in sterile insect technique programmes and for studies on their population ecology, movement and behaviour. This study was conducted to determine the effects of pigment colour and dose in marking the Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Six pigment colours (Astral Pink 1, Blaze 5, Stellar Green 8, Lunar Yellow 27, Comet Blue 60 and Invisible Blue 70) were applied to pupae at doses of 0, 2, 4, or 6 g/l. Under laboratory conditions, pigment colour had a small but significant effect on the number of partially emerged and deformed adults; the fewest of these were observed when flies were marked with Astral Pink 1. Pigment concentration, on the other hand, had no effect on adult emergence, partial emergence, deformed adults and mortality on the last day of eclosion. There was no significant effect of pigment colour on adult survival under laboratory and semi-field conditions. Under laboratory conditions, however, there was an effect of pigment concentration on adult survival depending on pigment colour. Visibility under an ultraviolet light and persistence of marks was significantly affected by pigment colour and concentration when observed under laboratory conditions, but not under semi-field conditions. Regardless of colour or dose, pigments used in the study were visible for at least 14 days, but began to fade by 21 days after adult eclosion. To mark B. dorsalis under temperate, warm summer African conditions, all pigment colours tested in this study may be applied at 2-4 g/l pupae. Recaptures of marked and released flies may be underestimated as the flies age.

show abstract

“…Ants that are in spatial proximity to a location where work is required indeed tend to contribute to the desired task4 and the sum of many such individual decisions impact colony scale division of labour5. The location of an ant further determines whom she interacts with6789 therefore influencing her social information. This is of utter importance since ants heavily rely on interactions in their subsequent decisions towards collective colony goals110.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ants regulate colony spatial organization using multiple chemical road-signs

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communication provides the basis for social life. In ant colonies, the prevalence of local, often chemically mediated, interactions introduces strong links between communication networks and the spatial distribution of ants. It is, however, unknown how ants identify and maintain nest chambers with distinct functions. Here, we combine individual tracking, chemical analysis and machine learning to decipher the chemical signatures present on multiple nest surfaces. We present evidence for several distinct chemical ‘road-signs' that guide the ants' movements within the dark nest. These chemical signatures can be used to classify nest chambers with different functional roles. Using behavioural manipulations, we demonstrate that at least three of these chemical signatures are functionally meaningful and allow ants from different task groups to identify their specific nest destinations, thus facilitating colony coordination and stabilization. The use of multiple chemicals that assist spatiotemporal guidance, segregation and pattern formation is abundant in multi-cellular organisms. Here, we provide a rare example for the use of these principles in the ant colony.

show abstract

Use of radio-tagging to map spatial organization and social interactions in insects

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

Electronic individual identification of zebrafish using radio frequency identification (RFID) microtags

Electronic individual identification of zebrafish using radio frequency identification (RFID) microtags

MarkingBactrocera dorsalis(Diptera: Tephritidae) with Fluorescent Pigments: Effects of Pigment Colour and Concentration

Ants regulate colony spatial organization using multiple chemical road-signs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About