@phdthesis{Roeschard2002,
  author    = {R{\"o}schard, Jacqueline},
  title     = {Cutter, carriers and bucket brigades ...},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-2240},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2002},
  abstract  = {This study investigates the foraging behaviour of grass-cutting ants, Atta vollenweideri, with specific consideration of the following issues: (a) cutting behaviour and the determination of fragment size, (b) the effect of load size on transport economics, (c) division of labour and task-partitioning. Grass-cutting ants, Atta vollenweideri, harvest grass fragments that serve as substrate for the cultivation of a symbiotic fungus. Foragers were observed to cut grass fragments across the blade, thus resulting in longish, rectangular-shaped fragments in contrast to the semicircular fragments of leaf-cutting ants. Cutting was very time-consuming: In tough grasses like the typical grassland species Paspallum intermedium and Cyperus entrerrianus, cutting times lasted up to more than 20 minutes per fragment and roughly half of all initiated cutting attempts were given up by the ants. Foragers harvesting the softer grass Leersia hexandra were smaller than those foraging on the hard grasses. Fragment size determination and the extent of size-matching between ant body size and fragment size was investigated regarding possible effects of tissue toughness on decision-making and as a function of the distance from the nest. Tissue toughness affected decision-making such that fragment width correlated with ant body mass for the hard grass but not for the soft one, suggesting that when cutting is difficult, larger ants tend to select wider grasses to initiate cutting. The length of the fragments cut out of the two grass species differed statistically, but showed a large overlap in their distribution. Distance from the nest affected load size as well as the extent of size-matching: Fragments collected directly after cutting were significantly larger than those carried on the trail. This indicates that fragments were cut once again on their way to the nest. Size-matching depended on the trail sector considered, and was stronger in ants sampled closer to the nest, suggesting that carriers either cut fragments in sizes corresponding to their body mass prior transport, or transferred them to nestmates of different size after a short carrying distance. During transport, a worker takes a fragment with its mandibles at one end and carries it in a more or less vertical position. Thus, load length might particularly affect maneuverability, because of the marked displacement of the gravitational center. Conversely, based on the energetic of cutting, workers might maximise their individual harvesting rate by cutting long grass fragments, since the longer a grass fragment, the larger is the amount of material harvested per unit cutting effort. I therefore investigated the economics of load transport by focusing on the effects of load size (mass and length) on gross material transport rate to the nest. When controlling for fragment mass, both running speed of foragers and gross material transport rate was observed to be higher for short fragments. In contrast, if fragment mass was doubled and length maintained, running speed differed according to the mass of the loads, with the heavier fragments being transported at the lower pace. For the sizes tested, heavy fragments yielded a higher transport rate in spite of the lower speed of transport, as they did not slow down foragers so much that it counterbalanced the positive effects of fragment mass on material transport rate. The sizes of the fragments cut by grass-cutting ants under natural conditions therefore may represent the outcome of an evolutionary trade-off between maximising harvesting rate at the cutting site and minimising the effects of fragment size on material transport rates. I investigated division of labour and task partitioning during foraging by recording the behaviour of marked ants while cutting, and by monitoring the transport of fragments from the cutting until they reached the nest. A. vollenweideri foragers showed division of labour between cutting and carrying, with larger workers cutting the fragments, and smaller ones transporting them. This division was absent for food sources very close to the nest, when no physical trail was present. Along the trail, the transport of fragment was a partitioned task, i.e., workers formed bucket brigades composed of 2 to 5 carriers. This sequential load transport occurred more often on long than on short trails. The first carriers of a bucket brigade covered only short distances before dropping their fragments, turned back and continued foraging at the same food source. The last carriers covered the longest distance. There was no particular location on the trail for load dropping , i.e., fragments were not cached. I tested the predictions of two hypotheses about the causes of bucket brigades: First, bucket brigades might occur because of load-carriage effects: A load that is too big for an ant to be carried is dropped and carried further by nestmates. Second, fragments carried by bucket brigades might reach the nest quicker than if they are transported by a single carrier. Third, bucket brigades might enhance information flow among foragers: By transferring the load a worker may return earlier back to the foraging site and be able to reinforce the chemical trail, thus recruitment. In addition, the dropped fragment itself may contain information for unladen foragers about currently harvested sources and may enable them to choose between sources of different quality. I investigated load-carriage effects and possible time-saving by presenting ants with fragments of different but defined sizes. Load size did not affect frequency of load dropping nor the distance the first carrier covered before dropping, and transport time by bucket brigades was significantly longer than by single carriers. In order to study the information transfer hypothesis, I presented ants with fragments of different attractivity but constant size. Ants carrying high-quality fragments would be expected to drop them more often than workers transporting low-quality fragments, thus increasing the frequency of bucket brigades. My results show that increasing load quality increased the frequency of bucket brigades as well as it decreased the carrying distance of the first carrier. In other words, more attractive loads were dropped more frequently and after a shorter distance than less attractive ones with the first carriers returning to the foraging site to continue foraging. Summing up, neither load-carriage effects nor time-saving caused the occurrence of bucket brigades. Rather, the benefit might be found at colony level in an enhanced information flow.},
  subject      = {Atta},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Dornhaus2002,
  author    = {Dornhaus, Anna},
  title     = {The role of communication in the foraging process of social bees},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-3468},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2002},
  abstract  = {In the various groups of social bees, different systems of communication about food sources occur. These communication systems are different solutions to a common problem of social insects: efficiently allocating the necessary number of workers first to the task of foraging and second to the most profitable food sources. The solution chosen by each species depends on the particular ecological circumstances as well as the evolutionary history of that species. For example, the outstanding difference between the bumble bee and the honey bee system is that honey bees can communicate the location of profitable food sources to nestmates, which bumble bees cannot. To identify possible selection pressures that could explain this difference, I have quantified the benefits of communicating location in honey bees. I show that these strongly depend on the habitat, and that communicating location might not benefit bees in temperate habitats. This could be due to the differing spatial distributions of resources in different habitats, in particular between temperate and tropical regions. These distributions may be the reason why the mostly temperate-living bumble bees have never evolved a communication system that allows them to transfer information on location of food sources, whereas most tropical social bees (all honey bees and many stingless bees) are able to recruit nestmates to specific points in their foraging range. Nevertheless, I show that in bumble bees the allocation of workers to foraging is also regulated by communication. Successful foragers distribute in the nest a pheromone which alerts other bees to the presence of food. This pheromone stems from a tergite gland, the function of which had not been identified previously. Usage of a pheromone in the nest to alert other individuals to forage has not been described in other social insects, and might constitute a new mode of communicating about food sources. The signal might be modulated depending on the quality of the food source. Bees in the nest sample the nectar that has been brought into the nest. Their decision whether to go out and forage depends not only on the pheromone signal, but also on the quality of the nectar they have sampled. In this way, foraging activity of a bumble bee colony is adjusted to foraging conditions, which means most bees are allocated to foraging only if high-quality food sources are available. In addition, foraging activity is adjusted to the amount of food already stored. In a colony with full honeypots, no new bees are allocated to foraging. These results help us understand how the allocation of workers to the task of food collection is regulated according to external and internal nest conditions in bumble bees.},
  subject      = {Hummel},
  language  = {en}
}