4.7 Article

Diacamma ants adjust liquid foraging strategies in response to biophysical constraints

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.0549

Keywords

mandibular pseudotrophallaxis; social bucket; liquid transportation; liquid collection; optimal foraging theory; biophysics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ants collect liquid more efficiently by mandibular grabbing rather than drinking. When the viscosity of the liquid is high, ants change their liquid-collection method to increase the amount of sugar carried back to the nest.
Ant foragers provide food to the rest of the colony, often requiring transport over long distances. Foraging for liquid is challenging because it is difficult to transport and share. Many social insects store liquids inside the crop to transport them to the nest, and then regurgitate to distribute to nest-mates through a behaviour called trophallaxis. Some ants instead transport fluids with a riskier behaviour called pseudotrophallaxis-holding a drop of liquid between the mandibles through surface tension. Ants share this droplet with nest-mates without ingestion or regurgitation. We hypothesised that ants optimize their liquid-collection approach depending on viscosity. Using an ant that employs both trophallaxis and pseudotrophallaxis, we investigated the conditions where each liquid-collection behaviour is favoured by measuring biophysical properties, collection time and reaction to food quality for typical and viscosity-altered sucrose solutions. We found that ants collected more liquid per unit time by mandibular grabbing than by drinking. At high viscosities ants switched liquid collection method to mandibular grabbing in response to viscosity and not to sweetness. Our results demonstrate that ants change transport and sharing methods according to viscosity-a natural proxy for sugar concentration-thus increasing the mass of sugar returned to the nest per trip.

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