4.6 Article

The value of spatial experience and group size for ant colonies in direct competition

Journal

INSECT SCIENCE
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 241-250

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1744-7917.13090

Keywords

Cataglyphis; colony size; dominance-discovery trade-off; learning; maze solving; social insects

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Experience has limited contribution to foraging success under direct competition, and its impact depends on the size of the group; among groups of equal size, ants trained in complex mazes reach food rewards faster and more individuals feed on the food.
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.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available