@phdthesis{Paul2001,
  author    = {Paul, J{\"u}rgen},
  title     = {The Mouthparts of Ants},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-1179130},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2001},
  abstract  = {Ant mandible movements cover a wide range of forces, velocities and precision. The key to the versatility of mandible functions is the mandible closer muscle. In ants, this muscle is generally composed of distinct muscle fiber types that differ in morphology and contractile properties. Volume proportions of the fiber types are species-specific and correlate with feeding habits. Two biomechanical models explain how the attachment angles are optimized with respect to force and velocity output and how filament-attached fibers help to generate the largest force output from the available head capsule volume. In general, the entire mandible closer muscle is controlled by 10-12 motor neurons, some of which exclusively supply specific muscle fiber groups. Simultaneous recordings of muscle activity and mandible movement reveal that fast movements require rapid contractions of fast muscle fibers. Slow and accurate movements result from the activation of slow muscle fibers. Forceful movements are generated by simultaneous co-activation of all muscle fiber types. For fine control, distinct fiber bundles can be activated independently of each other. Retrograde tracing shows that most dendritic arborizations of the different sets of motor neurons share the same neuropil in the suboesophageal ganglion. In addition, some motor neurons invade specific parts of the neuropil. The labiomaxillary complex of ants is essential for food intake. I investigated the anatomical design of the labiomaxillary complex in various ant species focusing on movement mechanisms. The protraction of the glossa is a non muscular movement. Upon relaxation of the glossa retractor muscles, the glossa protracts elastically. I compared the design of the labiomaxillary complex of ants with that of the honey bee, and suggest an elastic mechanism for glossa protraction in honey bees as well. Ants employ two different techniques for liquid food intake, in which the glossa works either as a passive duct (sucking), or as an up- and downwards moving shovel (licking). For collecting fluids at ad libitum food sources, workers of a given species always use only one of both techniques. The species-specific feeding technique depends on the existence of a well developed crop and on the resulting mode of transporting the fluid food. In order to evaluate the performance of collecting liquids during foraging, I measured fluid intake rates of four ant species adapted to different ecological niches. Fluid intake rate depends on sugar concentration and the associated fluid viscosity, on the species-specific feeding technique, and on the extent of specialization on collecting liquid food. Furthermore, I compared the four ant species in terms of glossa surface characteristics and relative volumes of the muscles that control licking and sucking. Both probably reflect adaptations to the species-specific ecological niche and determine the physiological performance of liquid feeding. Despite species-specific differences, single components of the whole system are closely adjusted to each other according to a general rule.},
  subject      = {Ameisen},
  language  = {en}
}