Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual size as determinant of sugar responsiveness in ants

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social insects commonly exhibit division of labor in non-reproductive tasks. Task allocation may be related to size, form, and ergonomic differences when workers are anatomically variable. Carpenter ants Camponotus mus collecting nectar exhibit a wide forager size variation, thus raising the question of whether large and minor workers differ in their gustatory responsiveness and specialize, therefore, on different nectar sources. To answer this question, we first established the sucrose concentration at which small and large ants in the laboratory respond appetitively to a sugar solution (sucrose acceptance threshold, SAT) after experiencing a high or a low starvation regime (4- or 1-day carbohydrate deprivation, respectively). Under high starvation, no differences in SATs were found between larger and smaller ants. Under low starvation, both sizes increased their SATs but larger ants had a higher SAT, thus preferring more concentrated solutions while smaller ants responded mostly to more diluted sucrose solutions. In a field assay in which the distribution of larger and smaller ants on sugary food sources was analyzed, small and medium ants were found—in different proportions—at all food sources while larger ants were only found at nectar sources with a higher sugar flow rate, i.e., providing more sugar per unit time. Both field and laboratory assays supported that sugar-related parameters act as determinants of the size distribution of ants among food sources. In addition, interindividual differences in alternative non-sugar-related variables may contribute to this distribution, leading thereby to a potential nectar foraging specialization.

Significance statement

Task specialization is crucial for the ecological success of social insects. Carpenter ants allocate individuals of variable size to foraging, thus raising the question of whether they differ in their food preferences. We determined the sugar concentration at which an appetitive response occurs in small and large carpenter ants, and analyzed their distribution on natural and artificial nectar sources in a field assay. Under low starvation, larger ants responded more than smaller ants to higher sucrose concentrations. Coincidently, in the field assay, they were mainly present at sources with higher sucrose delivery. This kind of specialization may reflect the fact that larger ants have larger feeding apparatuses, which may confer a better capacity to deal with the higher viscosity of more concentrated nectars and allow collecting more food at nectaries with higher sugar flow rates. Size specialization may thus increase colony success in the exploitation of variable food sources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baracchi D, Devaud JM, d’Ettorre P, Giurfa M (2017) Pheromones modulate reward responsiveness and non-associative learning in honey bees. Sci Rep 7:9875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckers R, Deneubourg JL, Goss S (1993) Modulation of trail laying in the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) and its role in the collective selection of a food source. J Insect Behav 6:751–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benard J, Stach S, Giurfa M (2006) Categorization of visual stimuli in the honeybee Apis mellifera. Anim Cogn 9:257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:413–440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boggs CL (1988) Rates of nectar feeding in butterflies: effects of sex, size, age and nectar concentration. Funct Ecol 2:289–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassill D (2003) Rules of supply and demand regulate recruitment to food in an ant society. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:441–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DW, Cook SC, Snelling RR (2004) Liquid-feeding performances of ants (Formicidae): ecological and evolutionary implications. Oecologia 139:255–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detrain C, Pasteels JM (1991) Caste differences in behavioral thresholds as a basis for polyethism during food recruitment in the ant Pheidole pallidula (Nyl.) (Hymenoptera: Myrmicinae). J Insect Behav 4:157–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falibene A, Josens R (2008) Nectar intake rate is modulated by changes in sucking pump activity according to colony starvation in carpenter ants. J Comp Physiol A 194:491–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falibene A, Josens R (2012) Sucrose acceptance threshold: a way to measure sugar perception in ants. Insect Soc 59:75–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falibene A, Gontijo Ade F, Josens R (2009) Sucking pump activity in feeding behaviour regulation in carpenter ants. J Insect Physiol 55:518–524

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM (1996) The organization of work in social insect colonies. Nature 380:121–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DM (2002) The organization of work in social insect colonies. Complexity 8:43–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DG, Moreau M, Fourcassie V, Traniello JFA (2018) Limited size-related variation in behavioral performance among workers of the exceptionally polymorphic ant Pheidole rhea. Insect Soc 65:431–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter C, Menezes C, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL, Ratnieks FLW (2012) A morphologically specialized soldier caste improves colony defense in a neotropical eusocial bee. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:1182–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grześ IM, Okrutniak M, Grzegorzek J (2016) The size-dependent division of labour in monomorphic ant Lasius niger. Eur J Soil Biol 77:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrieri FJ, d’Ettorre P (2010) Associative learning in ants: conditioning of the maxilla-labium extension response in Camponotus aethiops. J Insect Physiol 56:88–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haupt SS (2004) Antennal sucrose perception in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.): behaviour and electrophysiology. J Comp Physiol A 190:735–745

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Herbers JM, Cunningham M (1983) Social organization in Leptothorax longispinosus Mayr. Anim Behav 31:759–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes WOH, Goulson D (2001) Polyethism and the importance of context in the alarm reaction of the grass-cutting ant, Atta capiguara. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:503–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jandt JM, Dornhaus A (2014) Bumblebee response thresholds and body size: does worker diversity increase colony performance? Anim Behav 87:97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josens R (2002) Nectar feeding and body size in the ant Camponotus mus. Insect Soc 49:326–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josens R, Falibene A, Gontijo Ade F (2006) Electrical signals during nectar sucking in the carpenter ant Camponotus mus. J Insect Physiol 52:1234–1242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsolver JG, Daniel TL (1979) On the mechanics and energetics of nectar feeding in butterflies. J Theor Biol 76:167–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kleineidam CJ, Rossler W, Holldobler B, Roces F (2007) Perceptual differences in trail-following leaf-cutting ants relate to body size. J Insect Physiol 53:1233–1241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mailleux AC, Deneubourg JL, Detrain C (2000) How do ants assess food volume? Anim Behav 59:1061–1069

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Medan V, Josens RB (2005) Nectar foraging behaviour is affected by ant body size in Camponotus mus. J Insect Physiol 51:853–860

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Minnich DE (1932) The contact chemoreceptors of the honey bee Apis mellifera. J Exp Zool 61:375–393

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mody K, Linsenmair KE (2003) Finding its place in a competitive ant community: leaf fidelity of Camponotus sericeus. Insect Soc 50:191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan ED, Keegans SJ, Tits J, Wenseleers T, Billen J (2006) Preferences and differences in the trail pheromone of the leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens sexdens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Eur J Entomol 103:553–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettimi RP, Iyer P (2015) Patch fidelity in Camponotus compressus ants foraging on honeydew secreted by treehoppers. Curr Sci 109:362–366

  • Page RE, Erber J (2002) Levels of behavioral organization and the evolution of division of labor. Naturwissenschaften 89:91–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Page RE Jr, Erber J, Fondrk MK (1998) The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Comp Physiol 182:489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pankiw T, Page RE (2003) Effect of pheromones, hormones, and handling on sucrose response thresholds of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Comp Physiol A 189:675–684

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pankiw T, Page RE Jr (1999) The effect of genotype, age, sex, and caste on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J Comp Physiol 185:207–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pankiw T, Page RE Jr (2001) Genotype and colony environment affect honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) development and foraging behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:87–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pankiw T, Waddington KD, Page RE (2001) Modulation of sucrose response thresholds in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.): influence of genotype, feeding, and foraging experience. J Comp Physiol A 187:293–301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paul J, Roces F (2003) Fluid intake rates in ants correlate with their feeding habits. J Insect Physiol 49:347–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GE, Page R (1989) Genetic basis for division of labor in an insect society. In: Breed MD, Page R (eds) The genetics of social evolution. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 61–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 37:637–665

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson EJH, Feinerman O, Franks NR (2009) Flexible task allocation and the organization of work in ants. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:4373–4380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner R, Plückhahn S, Öney B, Blenau W, Erber J (2002) Behavioural pharmacology of octopamine, tyramine and dopamine in honey bees. Behav Brain Res 136:545–553

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner R, Barnert M, Erber J (2003) Variation in water and sucrose responsiveness during the foraging season affects proboscis extension learning in honey bees. Apidologie 34:67–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner R, Page RE, Erber J (2004) Sucrose responsiveness and behavioral plasticity in honey bees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 35:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner R, Baumann A, Blenau W (2006) Aminergic control and modulation of honeybee behaviour. Curr Neuropharmacol 4:259–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schilman PE (2011) Trail-laying behaviour as a function of resource quality in the ant Camponotus rufipes. Psyche 011:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeley TD, Camazine S, Sneyd J (1991) Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:277–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaethe J, Chittka L (2003) Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. J Exp Biol 206:3447–3453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaethe J, Brockmann A, Halbig C, Tautz J (2007) Size determines antennal sensitivity and behavioral threshold to odors in bumblebee workers. Naturwissenschaften 94:733–739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sutera SP, Skalak R (1993) The history of Poiseuille’s law. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 25:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westling JN, Harrington K, Bengston S, Dornhaus A (2014) Morphological differences between extranidal and intranidal workers in the ant Temnothorax rugatulus, but no effect of body size on foraging distance. Insect Soc 61:367–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto M, Del-Claro K (2008) Natural history and foraging behavior of the carpenter ant Camponotus sericeiventris Guérin, 1838 (Formicinae, Campotonini) in the Brazilian tropical savanna. Acta Ethol 11:55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and corrections. M.G. thanks the support of the French National Research Center (CNRS) and the University Paul Sabatier of Toulouse for support.

Funding

R.J. thanks the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) of Argentina, and the National Agency for Scientific and Technological Promotion (ANPCyT - PICT 2016-1676) for funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratorio de Insectos Sociales, Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, IFIBYNE, CONICET, Ciudad Universitaria Pab. II. (C1428 EHA), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Roxana Josens, M. Agustina Lopez & Nélida Jofré

  2. Research Centre on Animal Cognition, Center for Integrative Biology, University of Toulouse, CNRS, 118 route de Narbonne, F-31062, Toulouse cedex 09, France

    Martin Giurfa

Authors
  1. Roxana Josens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Agustina Lopez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nélida Jofré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Giurfa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roxana Josens.

Ethics declarations

This work complies with the current laws of the countries in which it was performed.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by O. Rueppell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Josens, R., Lopez, M.A., Jofré, N. et al. Individual size as determinant of sugar responsiveness in ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72, 162 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2581-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2581-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation