4.7 Article

Fight tactics in wood ants: individuals in smaller groups fight harder but die faster

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 278, Issue 1722, Pages 3243-3250

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0062

Keywords

Formica rufa; aggression; resource-holding potential; body size; group size; Lanchester's attrition laws

Funding

  1. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [F014147/1]
  2. BBSRC [BB/F014147/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F014147/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

When social animals engage in inter-group contests, the outcome is determined by group sizes and individual masses, which together determine group resource-holding potential ('group RHP'). Individuals that perceive themselves as being in a group with high RHP may receive a motivational increase and increase their aggression levels. Alternatively, individuals in lower RHP groups may increase their aggression levels in an attempt to overcome the RHP deficit. We investigate how 'group RHP' influences agonistic tactics in red wood ants Formica rufa. Larger groups had higher total agonistic indices, but per capita agonistic indices were highest in the smallest groups, indicating that individuals in smaller groups fought harder. Agonistic indices were influenced by relative mean mass, focal group size, opponent group size and opponent group agonistic index. Focal group attrition rates decreased as focal group relative agonistic indices increased and there was a strong negative influence of relative mean mass. The highest focal attrition rates were received when opponent groups were numerically large and composed of large individuals. Thus, fight tactics in F. rufa seem to vary with both aspects of group RHP, group size and the individual attributes of group members, indicating that information on these are available to fighting ants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available