Elsevier

Animal Behaviour

Volume 62, Issue 4, October 2001, Pages 635-642
Animal Behaviour

Regular Articles
Division of labour within teams of New World and Old World army ants

https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1794Get rights and content

Abstract

In army ants, prey items are often retrieved by cooperative teams of workers rather than by single porters. We used experiments and randomization tests to explore the division of labour within such teams in the New World army antEciton burchelli , and the Old World army ant Dorylus wilverthi. We evaluated these teams in the light of a recent proposal that teams should be defined in terms of the concurrent performance of different subtasks by their members. This is a broader and more useful definition of teams than a previous one in which teams were defined by a membership necessarily involving different castes. Within army ant teams there is a front runner who initiates prey retrieval and one or more followers. Hence, there are two qualitatively different subtasks that must be performed concurrently during such teamwork. Previous work has shown that these teams are superefficient: the combined weight of the prey retrieved by the team is greater than the sum of the maximum weights the team members could carry when working singly. Here we show, for both species of army ant, that such teams have a nonrandom composition of members. The front runner is typically unusually large and the second-largest ant in a team is typically unusually small. These analyses are based on worker dry weights rather than assigning workers to discrete caste categories. Our analysis also suggests that the behaviour of army ants is more sophisticated then previously suspected. Our data imply that if an unnecessarily large supplementary ant (follower) tries to help the front runner to move a large prey item, but finds that the remaining work is too slight to use her full efforts, she does not join the team. One or more smaller ants whose efforts become fully employed become involved instead. This suggests that army ants engaged in teamwork have both upper and lower workload thresholds.

References (25)

  • N.R. Franks et al.

    Foraging for work: how tasks allocate workers

    Animal Behaviour

    (1994)
  • Anderson, C. Franks, N. R. Teams in animal societies, Behavioral...
  • A.F.G. Bourke et al.

    Social Evolution in Ants

    (1995)
  • W.J. Conover

    Practical Nonparametric Statistics

    (1980)
  • L.A. Dugatkin

    Cooperation Among Animals: an Evolutionary Perspective

    (1997)
  • J. Faaborg et al.

    Galapagos and Harris' Hawks: divergent causes of sociality in two raptors

  • N.R. Franks

    Reproduction, foraging efficiency and worker polymorphism in army ants

  • N.R. Franks

    Teams in social insects: group retrieval of prey by army ants (Eciton burchelli, Hymenoptera, Formicidae)

    Behavioral Ecolology and Sociobiology

    (1986)
  • N.R. Franks

    Army ants: a collective intelligence

    American Scientist

    (1989)
  • N.R. Franks et al.

    Convergent evolution, superefficient teams and tempo in Old and New World army ants

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B

    (1999)
  • W.H. Gotwald

    Army Ants: the Biology of Social Predation

    (1995)
  • B. Hölldobler et al.

    The Ants

    (1990)
  • Cited by (0)

    f1

    Correspondence: N. R. Franks, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, U.K. (email:[email protected]).

    f2

    A. B. Sendova-Franks is at the Faculty of Computer Studies and Mathematics, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, U.K.

    f3

    C. Anderson is at LS Biologie I, Universität Regensburg, Universitätsstrasse 31, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany.

    View full text