Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T22:24:00.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FORAGING BEHAVIOR OF THE CARPENTER ANT, CAMPONOTUS MODOC (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE), IN A GIANT SEQUOIA FOREST1,2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

David A. Tilles  and
David L. Wood
David A. Tilles
Affiliation:
Division of Forest Entomology, Department of Plant and Forest Protection, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7044, S-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden
David L. Wood
Affiliation:
Department of Entomological Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 94720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The proportion of large Camponotus modoc workers returning to the nest with solid food was significantly less than that of smaller workers. The average weight of ants collected at colonies of the aphid Cinara occidentalis was significantly less than the average weight of ants collected in the vicinity of the ant nest. These data and additional observations suggest that small ants are more likely to attend aphids and transport solid food than are large ants. Some large ants may specialize in honeydew transport. Markand-recapture studies showed that workers of Camponotus modoc returned to the same trunk trails and aphid colonies from which they had previously been removed. When relocated to either the base of the tree or to the nest entrance, some workers demonstrated a capacity to recognize the original aphid colony from among as many as eight other colonies in the same tree. Some ants were observed on the same aphid colony for long periods.

Résumé

La proportion des grosses travailleuses de Camponotus modoc qui retournent au nid avec de la nourriture solide est significativement inférieure à celle des petites travailleuses. Le poids moyen des fourmis recueillies aux colonies de l’aphide Cinara occidentalis était significativement inférieur au poids moyen des fourmis recueillies dans le voisinage de la fourmilière. Ces données et d’autres observations indiquent que les petites fourmis fréquentent probablement plus les aphides et s’occupent plus du transport des aliments solides que les grandes fourmis. Certaines grosses fourmis semblent se spécialiser dans le transport du miellat. Des données de marquage–recapture ont montré que les gravailleuses de Camponotus modoc reprenaient les mêmes pistes sur les troncs et retournaient aux mêmes colonies d’aphides que celles d’où elles provenaient. Une fois replacées à la base de l’arbre ou à l’entrée du nid, certaines travailleuses se sont montrées capables de reconnaître la colonie d’aphide originale parmi jusqu’à huit autres colonies situées sur le même arbre. Certaines fourmis ont été observées à la même colonie d’aphide pendant de longues périodes.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 118 , Issue 9 , September 1986 , pp. 861 - 867
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buckingham, E.M. 1911. Division of labor among ants. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 46: 425–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, C.T., and Wood, D.L.. 1980. Orientation to trails by a carpenter ant, Camponotus modoc (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in a giant sequoia forest. Can. Ent. 112: 993–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrzanska, J. 1958. Partitioning of foraging grounds and modes of conveying information among ants. Acta Biol. Exp. 18: 55–67.Google Scholar
Dobrzanska, J. 1959. Studies on the division of labor in the ant genus Formica. Acta Biol. Exp. 19: 57–81.Google Scholar
Ebbers, B.C., and Barrows, E.M.. 1980. Individual ants specialize on particular aphid herds (Hymenoptera: Formicidae; Homoptera: Aphididae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 82: 405–407.Google Scholar
Fowler, H.G., and Roberts, R.B.. 1980. Foraging behavior of the carpenter ant, Camponotus pennsylvanicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in New Jersey. J. Kans. ent. Soc. 53: 295–304.Google Scholar
Hartwick, E.B., Friend, W.G., and Atwood, C.E.. 1977. Trail-laying behavior of the carpenter ant, Camponotus pennsylvanicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Cant. Ent. 109: 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbers, J.M. 1977. Behaviorial constancy in Formica obscuripes. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 10: 485–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölldobler, B. 1976. Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölldobler, B., and Moglich, M.. 1980. The foraging system of Pheidole militicida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ins. Soc. 27: 237–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiil, V. 1934. Untersuchungen über die Arbeitsteilung bei Ameisen (Formica rufa L., Camponotus herculeanus L. und Camponotus ligniperda Latr.). Biol. Zbl. 54: 114–146.Google Scholar
Lee, J. 1938. Division of labor among the workers of the Asiatic carpenter ants (Camponotus japonicus var. aterrimus). Peking Nat. Hist. Bull. 13: 137–145.Google Scholar
Oster, G.F., and Wilson, E.O.. 1978. Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 352 pp.Google ScholarPubMed
Otto, D. 1958. Die Ortstreue der Blattlausbesucher von Formica rufa L. Waldhygiene 2: 114–117.Google Scholar
Piirto, D.D., Parmeter, J.R., Wilcox, W.W., and Wood, D.L.. 1984. Causes of uprooting and breakage of specimen Giant Sequoia trees. Univ. Calif. Div. Agric. Nat. Res. Bull. 1909. 14 pp.Google Scholar
Pricer, J.L. 1908. The life history of the carpenter ant. Biol. Bull. Mar. Biol. Lab. Woods Hole 14: 177–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosengren, R. 1971. Route fidelity, visual memory and recruitment behavior in foraging wood ants of the genus Formica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Act. zool. fenn. 133: 1–101.Google Scholar
Tilles, D.A. and Wood, D.L.. 1982. The influence of carpenter ant (Camponotus modoc) attendance on the development and survival of aphids (Cinara spp.) in a giant sequoia forest. Can. Ent. 114: 1133–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traniello, J.F.A. 1977. Recruitment behavior and the organization of foraging in the carpenter ant (Camponotus pennsylvanicus DeGeer. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2: 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, M.J. 1963. Mutualism between ants and honeydew producing Homoptera. Annu. Rev. Ent. 8: 307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E.O. 1971. The insect societies. Belknap Press, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. 548 pp.Google Scholar