The value of spatial experience and group size for ant colonies in direct competition.
Cataglyphis
colony size
dominance-discovery trade-off
learning
maze solving
social insects
Journal
Insect science
ISSN: 1744-7917
Titre abrégé: Insect Sci
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101266965
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
revised:
30
05
2022
received:
14
03
2022
accepted:
31
05
2022
pubmed:
14
6
2022
medline:
10
2
2023
entrez:
13
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Animals often search for food more efficiently with experience. However, the contribution of experience to foraging success under direct competition has rarely been examined. Here we used colonies of an individually foraging desert ant to investigate the value of spatial experience. First, we trained worker groups of equal numbers to solve either a complex or a simple maze. We then tested pairs of both groups against one another in reaching a food reward. This task required solving the same complex maze that one of the groups had been trained in, to determine which group would exploit better the food reward. The worker groups previously trained in the complex mazes reached the food reward faster and more of these workers fed on the food than those trained in simple mazes, but only in the intermediate size group. To determine the relative importance of group size versus spatial experience in exploiting food patches, we then tested smaller trained worker groups against larger untrained ones. The larger groups outcompeted the smaller ones, despite the latter's advantage of spatial experience. The contribution of spatial experience, as found here, appears to be small, and depends on group size: an advantage of a few workers of the untrained group over the trained group negates its benefits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35696548
doi: 10.1111/1744-7917.13090
pmc: PMC10084317
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
241-250Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Insect Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Références
Oecologia. 1998 Feb;113(4):577-583
pubmed: 28308038
Curr Zool. 2018 Oct;64(5):653-661
pubmed: 30323844
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Mar 22;274(1611):839-44
pubmed: 17251094
Am Nat. 2007 Mar;169(3):323-33
pubmed: 17230402
Environ Entomol. 2011 Oct;40(5):999-1006
pubmed: 22251712
Ecol Lett. 2018 Jun;21(6):779-793
pubmed: 29611278
Nature. 2001 Mar 22;410(6827):463-6
pubmed: 11260712
Oecologia. 1993 May;94(2):244-246
pubmed: 28314038
Theor Popul Biol. 2006 Feb;69(1):68-87
pubmed: 16243372
Anim Cogn. 2008 Jul;11(3):563-7
pubmed: 18283502
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Dec 7;270(1532):2465-9
pubmed: 14667336
Heredity (Edinb). 1992 Dec;69 ( Pt 6):489-95
pubmed: 1478885
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Jan;19(1):46-54
pubmed: 25487706
Science. 2006 Jul 14;313(5784):224-6
pubmed: 16840700
J Anim Ecol. 2007 Jan;76(1):58-64
pubmed: 17184353
J R Soc Interface. 2019 Jul 26;16(156):20190103
pubmed: 31288648
Integr Zool. 2022 Sep;17(5):704-714
pubmed: 34958517
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 24;12(8):e0183753
pubmed: 28837675
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2003 Aug;189(8):579-88
pubmed: 12879352
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Nov 7;273(1602):2737-42
pubmed: 17015327
Curr Zool. 2021 Mar 15;68(4):441-450
pubmed: 36090143
Evolution. 2004 Mar;58(3):608-18
pubmed: 15119444
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 28;15(2):e0229709
pubmed: 32109253
Theor Popul Biol. 1975 Dec;8(3):356-75
pubmed: 1220046
Ecology. 2010 Aug;91(8):2366-72
pubmed: 20836458
J Exp Biol. 2012 Aug 1;215(Pt 15):2653-9
pubmed: 22786642
Behav Processes. 2019 Sep;166:103893
pubmed: 31252072
Ecol Lett. 2018 Sep;21(9):1319-1329
pubmed: 29938882