Why do house-hunting ants recruit in both directions?

To perform tasks, organisms often use multiple procedures. Explaining the breadth of such behavioural repertoires is not always straightforward. During house hunting, colonies of Temnothorax albipennis ants use a range of behaviours to organise their emigrations. In particular, the ants use tandem running to recruit naïve ants to potential nest sites. Initially, they use forward tandem runs (FTRs) in which one leader takes a single follower along the route from the old nest to the new one. Later, they use reverse tandem runs (RTRs) in the opposite direction. Tandem runs are used to teach active ants the route between the nests, so that they can be involved quickly in nest evaluation and subsequent recruitment. When a quorum of decision-makers at the new nest is reached, they switch to carrying nestmates. This is three times faster than tandem running. As a rule, having more FTRs early should thus mean faster emigrations, thereby reducing the colony’s vulnerability. So why do ants use RTRs, which are both slow and late? It would seem quicker and simpler for the ants to use more FTRs (and higher quorums) to have enough knowledgeable ants to do all the carrying. In this study, we present the first testable theoretical explanation for the role of RTRs. We set out to find the theoretically fastest emigration strategy for a set of emigration conditions. We conclude that RTRs can have a positive effect on emigration speed if FTRs are limited. In these cases, low quorums together with lots of reverse tandem running give the fastest emigration

An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic insecticides. Part 2: impacts on organisms and ecosystems

New information on the lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on organisms is presented in this review, complementing the previous WIA in 2015. The high toxicity of these systemic insecticides to invertebrates has been confirmed and expanded to include more species and compounds. Most of the recent research has focused on bees and the sublethal and ecological impacts these insecticides have on pollinators. Toxic effects on other invertebrate taxa also covered predatory and parasitoid natural enemies and aquatic arthropods. Little, while not much new information has been gathered on soil organisms. The impact on marine coastal ecosystems is still largely uncharted. The chronic lethality of neonicotinoids to insects and crustaceans, and the strengthened evidence that these chemicals also impair the immune system and reproduction, highlights the dangers of this particular insecticidal classneonicotinoids and fipronil. , withContinued large scale – mostly prophylactic – use of these persistent organochlorine pesticides has the potential to greatly decreasecompletely eliminate populations of arthropods in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Sublethal effects on fish, reptiles, frogs, birds and mammals are also reported, showing a better understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity of these insecticides in vertebrates, and their deleterious impacts on growth, reproduction and neurobehaviour of most of the species tested. This review concludes with a summary of impacts on the ecosystem services and functioning, particularly on pollination, soil biota and aquatic invertebrate communities, thus reinforcing the previous WIA conclusions (van der Sluijs et al. 2015)

Males do not always switch females when presented with a better reproductive option

Galipaud M, Bollache L, Oughadou A, Dechaume-Moncharmont F-X. Males do not always switch females when presented with a better reproductive option. Behavioral Ecology. 2015;26(2):359-366

Paying for information: partial loads in central place foragers

11 pagesInternational audienceInformation about food sources can be crucial to the success of a foraging animal. We predict that this will influence foraging decisions by group-living foragers, which may sacrifice short-term foraging efficiency to collect information more frequently. This result emerges from a model of a central-place forager that can potentially receive information on newly available superior food sources at the central place. Such foragers are expected to return early from food sources, even with just partial loads, if information about the presence of sufficiently valuable food sources is likely to become available. Returning with an incomplete load implies that the forager is at that point not achieving the maximum possible food delivery rate. However, such partial loading can be more than compensated for by an earlier exploitation of a superior food source. Our model does not assume cooperative foraging and could thus be used to investigate this effect for any social central-place forager. We illustrate the approach using numerical calculations for honeybees and leafcutter ants, which do forage cooperatively. For these examples, however, our results indicate that reducing load confers minimal benefits in terms of receiving information. Moreover, the hypothesis that foragers reduce load to give information more quickly (rather than to receive it) fits empirical data from social insects better. Thus, we can conclude that in these two cases of social-insect foraging, efficient distribution of information by successful foragers may be more important than efficient collection of information by unsuccessful ones