The role of non-foraging nests in polydomous wood ant colonies

A colony of red wood ants can inhabit more than one spatially separated nest, in a strategy called polydomy. Some nests within these polydomous colonies have no foraging trails to aphid colonies in the canopy. In this study we identify and investigate the possible roles of non-foraging nests in polydomous colonies of the wood ant Formica lugubris. To investigate the role of non-foraging nests we: (i) monitored colonies for three years; (ii) observed the resources being transported between non-foraging nests and the rest of the colony; (iii) measured the amount of extra-nest activity around non-foraging and foraging nests. We used these datasets to investigate the extent to which non-foraging nests within polydomous colonies are acting as: part of the colony expansion process; hunting and scavenging specialists; brood-development specialists; seasonal foragers; or a selfish strategy exploiting the foraging effort of the rest of the colony. We found that, rather than having a specialised role, non-foraging nests are part of the process of colony expansion. Polydomous colonies expand by founding new nests in the area surrounding the existing nests. Nests founded near food begin foraging and become part of the colony; other nests are not founded near food sources and do not initially forage. Some of these non-foraging nests eventually begin foraging; others do not and are abandoned. This is a method of colony growth not available to colonies inhabiting a single nest, and may be an important advantage of the polydomous nesting strategy, allowing the colony to expand into profitable areas

The Influence of Host Plant Extrafloral Nectaries on Multitrophic Interactions: An Experimental Investigation.

A field experiment was conducted with outplantings of the native perennial shrub Senna mexicana var. chapmanii in a semi-natural area adjacent to native pine rockland habitat in southern Florida. The presence of ants and the availability of extrafloral nectar were manipulated in a stratified random design. Insect communities were monitored and recorded over a period of six months with a view to addressing three main questions. Do ants provide biotic defense against key herbivores on S. chapmanii? Is the presence of ants on S. chapmanii mediated by EFN? Finally, are there ecological costs associated with the presence of ants on S. chapmanii, such as a reduction in alternative predator or parasitoid numbers? Herbivores on S. chapmanii included immature stages of three pierid butterflies, and adult weevils. Eight species of ants were associated with the plants, and other predators included spiders, ladybugs, wasps, and hemipterans. Parasitic, haemolymph-sucking midges (Ceratopogonidae) and parasitoid flies were also associated with the caterpillar herbivores, and possibly the extrafloral nectaries of the plants. The presence of ants did not appear to influence oviposition by butterflies, as numbers of lepidopterans of all developmental stages did not differ among treatments. Significantly more late instar caterpillars, however, were observed on plants with ants excluded, indicating that ants remove small caterpillars from plants. Substantially more alternative predators (spiders, ladybugs, and wasps) were observed on plants with ants excluded. Rates of parasitization did not differ among the treatments, but there were substantially fewer caterpillars succumbing to virus among those collected from control plants. We provide a rare look at facultative ant-plant mutualisms in the context of the many other interactions with which they overlap. We conclude that ants provide some biotic defense against herbivores on S. chapmanii, and plants benefit overall from the presence of ants, despite negative impacts on non-ant predators