Abstract
Camponotus mus ants can associate sucrose and odour at the source during successive foraging cycles and use this memory to locate the nectar in the absence of other cues. These ants perform conspicuous trophallactic behaviour during recruitment while foraging for nectar. In this work, we studied whether Camponotus mus ants are able to establish this odour-sucrose association in the social context of trophallaxis and we evaluated this memory in another context previously experienced by the ant, as a nectar source. After a single trophallaxis of a scented solution, the receiver ant was tested in a Y-maze without any reward, where two scents were presented: in one arm, the solution scent and in the other, a new scent. Ants consistently chose the arm with the solution scent and stayed longer therein. Trophallaxis duration had no effect on the arm choice or with the time spent in each arm. Workers are able to associate an odour (conditioned stimulus) with the sucrose (unconditioned stimulus) they receive through a social interaction and use this memory as choice criteria during food searching.
Highlights
Many social insects perform group or cooperative foraging
We studied whether the nectivorous ant Camponotus mus was able to establish an association between odour and nectar in the social context of trophallaxis
To observe whether the trophallaxis duration affected the first choice at the Y-maze, we arbitrarily considered as short trophallaxes those that lasted up to 20 s, and long trophallaxes those that lasted more than that
Summary
Many social insects perform group or cooperative foraging. In this kind of behaviour, the organization of the group activities is based on the decisions made by individuals in response to stimuli from the environment and the local information obtained from nestmates (Wilson, 1971; Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990; Seeley, 1995; Breed et al, 1996; Mailleux et al, 2000; Gordon, 2007). All of them are modulated by the resource properties and the colony’s needs of that resource (Cammaerts and Cammaerts, 1980; Waddington, 1982; Traniello, 1983; Beckers et al, 1992; Roces and Nuñez, 1993; Farina, 1996; Mailleux et al, 2000; Sanders and Gordon, 2002; Portha et al, 2002; Cassil, 2003; Goyret and Farina, 2003; Le Breton and Fourcassié, 2004; McCabe et al, 2006) Such interactions allow exchange of information among workers; for example, unemployed foragers may know about available sources and active foragers about alternative sources or the current colony requirements (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990; Nuñez, 1982; Seeley, 1989; Farina, 2000; Gil and Farina, 2002). The donor can either return immediately to the source or not, depending on the receivers’ response (Cassil, 2003)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
