4.2 Article

Unbalanced visual cues do not affect search precision at the nest in desert ants (Cataglyphis nodus)

期刊

LEARNING & BEHAVIOR
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13420-023-00613-0

关键词

Area-restricted search; Formicidae; Panorama; Systematic search; Visual navigation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Desert ant foragers rely on visual cues for navigation and can estimate their location with equal precision in all directions, even in visually unbalanced environments. This study highlights the importance of visual information distribution in systematic searching behavior of ants.
Desert ant foragers are well known for their visual navigation abilities, relying on visual cues in the environment to find their way along routes back to the nest. If the inconspicuous nest entrance is missed, ants engage in a highly structured systematic search until it is discovered. Searching ants continue to be guided by visual cues surrounding the nest, from which they derive a location estimate. The precision level of this estimate depends on the information content of the nest panorama. This study examines whether search precision is also affected by the directional distribution of visual information. The systematic searching behavior of ants is examined under laboratory settings. Two different visual scenarios are compared - a balanced one where visual information is evenly distributed, and an unbalanced one where all visual information is located on one side of an experimental arena. The identity and number of visual objects is similar over both conditions. The ants search with comparable precision in both conditions. Even in the visually unbalanced condition, searches are characterized by balanced precision on both sides of the arena. This finding lends support to the idea that ants memorize the visual scenery at the nest as panoramic views from different locations. A searching ant is thus able to estimate its location with equal precision in all directions, leading to symmetrical search paths.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据