4.1 Article

Behavioral mechanisms of collective nest-site choice by the ant Temnothorax curvispinosus

期刊

INSECTES SOCIAUX
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 383-392

出版社

SPRINGER BASEL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00040-005-0823-z

关键词

collective decision-making; Leptothorax; Temnothorax curvispinosus; quorum sensing; nest-site selection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the individual behavior underlying collective choice among nest sites by the ant Temnothorax (formerly Leptothorax) curvispinosus. Colonies can actively compare options, rejecting a mediocre site when it is paired with a good one, but accepting the same mediocre design if it is instead paired with a worse site. This ability emerges from the behavior of an active minority of workers who organize emigrations. When one of these finds a promising site, she recruits nest mates to it, but only after a delay that varies inversely with site quality. Ants first recruit fellow active ants via slow tandem runs, but eventually switch to speedier transports of the colony's passive majority. Later transports grow faster still, as ants improve their speed with experience. An ant's choice of recruitment type is governed by a quorum rule, such that her likelihood of starting to transport increases with the population of the new site. The size of the quorum depends on experience, with ants demanding a larger population to launch immediately into transport than they do to switch to transport after first leading a few tandem runs. Perception of quorum attainment requires direct contact between ants. The ants' behavior qualitatively matches that of T. albipennis, where models have shown that decentralized choice of the best site depends on quality-dependent recruitment delays, amplified by a quorum rule for initiating transport. Parameter estimates for an agent-based model show significant quantitative differences between the species, and suggest that T. albipennis may place relatively greater emphasis on emigration speed.

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

4.1
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