(via Masoed Shakori)
Those corners of the internet prone to viral outbreaks are abuzz today with an intriguing ant video:
Is it real? Yes.
The quality isn’t great, but the clip appears to show an Asian Leptogenys daisy-chaining their bodies in parallel lines to haul away a large millipede. I have spent the morning searching the technical literature for mention of this unusual behavior, and am coming up empty. Some Leptogenys species, including L. diminuta, L. nitida, and L. processionalis, are known to forage in groups and transport prey “cooperatively” (source, source). What is meant by “cooperative” is often vague. (For more, see this excellent recent review of cooperative transport by Helen McCreery). Yet I didn’t find any explicit description of workers linking up, mandible to abdomen, to pull together.
Is ponerine daisy-chaining an unknown behavior? Possibly. It is also possible my search skills aren’t up to the task. If you know of a description of it, please drop a note in the comments. I am not the only one interested, either:
I did, however, happen across a higher quality video from a Cambodian beekeeper:
I presume the swelling music helps motivate the ants to pull harder. But, I digress.
Steve Shattuck took a photograph recently in Borneo capturing a variation on this behavior, with workers forming a chain by biting the legs of a preceding ant.
Again, I don’t think the behavior has been formally described beyond this smattering of visual media.
Regardless of documentation, daisy chaining raises some definitely unanswered questions and will make a fine Ph.D. thesis for some lucky student. How do ants organize themselves in chains? What cues do they use? How do they know to let go? Is chaining employed only for particular sizes or species of prey? How does the behavior effect overall foraging efficiency? What are the evolutionary precursors to chaining? And, do these ants have any other tricks up their coxae?
***Update 8/30/2014 -
In the comments, Roberto Keller suggested that the eminent ponerophile Christian Peeters might know something. And indeed, Christian emails in with the following:
I observed this fascinating behaviour in Cambodia 4 years ago. Stéphane De Greef was with me and some of his photos are attached.
The behaviour was very stereotyped: mandibles grab preceding ant’s gaster (between first and second segment).
Seiki Yamane identified it as Leptogenys sp. 47, closely related to L. chalybaea described from Borneo by Emery (but stronger sculpture especially on gastral tergites).
The millipedes were 130mm long, identified as order Spirostreptida (Diplopoda). Ant is 16mm long.
Back then I reviewed the literature and found no other record of chain behaviour in Ponerinae. No record of millipede predation in Leptogenys. Specialized hunting on millipedes is restricted to Thaumatomyrmex, Probolomyrmex and Gnamptogenys, but these are solitary hunters on a very different kind of millipedes (polyxenids).
I started writing a ms on this behaviour (formation of chains in ants through a self-assembling behaviour) but sadly I have not been able to get further observations. It seems to happen at certain times of the year only.
By an amazing coincidence, two days ago I finished fieldwork in northern Thailand and came across the same Leptogenys species. There were cleaned out ring segments of big millipedes outside entrances. Unfortunately I did not observe any raids.
postscript: The virality of the video also illustrates both the good and the bad about the internet. The good, of course, is that this fascinating ant behavior found its way in front of scientists who otherwise might not have seen it. On the other hand, the viral nature of the video means that actual person who filmed it is drowned out among the hundreds of uncredited, unsourced copies. Securing the information about where and when the video was taken, and verifying the species, is going to be difficult. This is one reason why crediting sources online is important. Lose the credit, lose the data.
A new microdocumentary by Adrian Smith, who you may already know from the Age of Discovery podcast:
Filmed at 600 frames per second, this is about 25 times slower than life. Yet, the mandible strike is still so quick as to appear instantaneous!
One measure of the importance of ants is the number of parasites that have evolved to exploit their abundant resources. This week has seen a cluster of new ant parasite studies. Among them:
1. Socially parasitic Formica move nests during raiding season to richer hunting grounds. From the abstract of Apple et al (2014):
Five summers of monitoring the raiding behavior of 11–14 colonies of the slavemakers Formica subintegra and Formica pergandei revealed relatively frequent nest relocations: of 14 colonies that have been tracked for at least three of 5 years, all but one moved at least once by invading existing host nests. Movements tended to occur in the middle of the raiding season and were typically followed by continued raiding of nearby host colonies. Spatial patterns of movements suggest that their purpose is to gain access to more host colonies to raid.
source: Apple, J.L., Lewandowski, S.L., Levine, J.L. 2014. Nest relocation in the slavemaking ants Formica subintegra and Formica pergandei: a response to host nest availability that increases raiding success. Insectes Sociaux, doi: 10.1007/s00040-014-0359-1
2. Myrmica just can’t catch a break. A literature survey by Witek at al reports an array of about 40 parasites on these common holarctic ants, including butterfly larvae, socially parasitic ants, fly larvae, fungi, and others.
My sense is that Myrmica isn’t unusual in its parasite load; rather, Myrmica geography has lent itself to observation by natural-history obsessed northern Europeans. As myrmecology advances elsewhere, plenty of other ants will turn out to have lives just as miserable as Myrmica‘s.
source: Witek, M., Barbero, F., Markó, B. 2014. Myrmica ants host highly diverse parasitic communities: from social parasites to microbes. Insectes Sociaux, doi: 10.1007/s00040-014-0362-6
3. The famous ant-killing Ophiocordyceps fungus, when injected into a non-host species, fails to induce the stereotyped death-bite behavior. From the abstract of a paper by de Bekker et al:
…brain manipulation is species-specific seemingly because the fungus produces a specific array of compounds as a reaction to the presence of the host brain it has evolved to manipulate.
The real news here is the development of a technique to infect the fungus across species and monitor the results. This method will be powerful going forward, especially since the test of specificity in this study is weaker than the title would suggest. The researchers only injected a single non-host Camponotus, and they’ll need more for a proper assay of host range. I presume such work is coming, as the Hughes lab is generally thorough and highly productive.
source: de Bekker, C., Quevillon, L., Smith, P.B., Fleming, K., Ghosh, D., Patterson, A.D., Hughes, D.P. 2014. Species-specific ant brain manipulation by a specialized fungal parasite. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2014, 14:166 doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0166-3
4. A parasite of fungus-growing ants provides convincing evidence for sympatric speciation. Older generations of biologists have been slow to accept that new species can arise while in physical proximity to their parent species, as mating between forms could erase any nascent differences. But Christian Rabeling et al have genetic data in Mycocepurus goeldii and its parasite M. castrator (ouch!) that make any other scenario highly unlikely. From the abstract:
Based on differing patterns of relationship in mitochondrial and individual nuclear genes, we conclude that host and parasite occupy a temporal window in which lineage sorting has taken place in the mitochondrial genes but not yet in the nuclear alleles. We infer that the host originated first and that the parasite originated subsequently from a subset of the host species’ populations, providing empirical support for the hypothesis that inquiline parasites can evolve reproductive isolation while living sympatrically with their hosts.
source: Rabeling, C. Schultz, T.R., Pierce, N.E., Bacci, M. 2014. A Social Parasite Evolved Reproductive Isolation from Its Fungus-Growing Ant Host in Sympatry. Current Biology. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.07.048
And now, the funniest thing on Youtube:
The directors are white Australians, most of the cast is Indian Australian, and this sort of comedy can very, very easily descend into cheap racism. But these guys point their barbs in the right direction, and I think they pull it off.
Warning: adult language. Because it’s Australia.
Why, a warm funnel-web greeting from Australia:
In a whimsical mood yesterday, I set up a Zazzle shop for a unique series of tongue-in-cheek arthropod cards. Go visit.
Check this out:
It’s the first video of live Tatuidris, among the rarest and least understood of all ants. Until recently, no one had even seen one alive. The video is from a new paper in Insect Science, where a team of Belgian myrmecologists report their observations on a recent collection of live specimens. Here’s the abstract:
Ants of the genus Tatuidris Brown and Kempf (Formicidae: Agroecomyrmecinae) generally occur at low abundances in forests of Central and South America. Their morphological peculiarities, such as mandibular brushes, are presumably linked with specialized predatory habits. Our aims were to (1) assess the Tatuidris abundance in an evergreen premontane forest of Ecuador; (2) detail morphological characteristics and feeding behavior of Tatuidris; and (3) define the position of Tatuidris in the food web. A total of 465 litter samples were collected. For the first time, liveTatuidris individuals were observed. Various potential food sources were offered to them. A nitrogen stable isotope ratio analysis (15N/14N) was conducted on Tatuidris tatusia, other ants, and common organisms from the leaf-litter mesofauna. We found a relatively high abundance of T. tatusia in the site. Live individuals did not feed on any of the food sources offered, as usually observed with diet specialist ants. The isotope analysis revealed that T. tatusia is one of the top predators of the leaf-litter food web.
So Tatuidris is a top micro-predator. But of what?
sources: Jacquemin J, Delsinne T, Maraun M, Leponce M. 2014. Trophic ecology of the armadillo ant, Tatuidris tatusia, assessed by stable isotopes and behavioral observations. Journal of Insect Science 14(108). Available online: http://www.insectscience.org/14.108.
Greibenow, Z. 2014. Glimpsing Armadillo Ants. Gentle Centipede blog: http://gentlecentipede.blogspot.com/2014/05/glimpsing-armadillo-ants.html
A time-lapse treasure from the BBC’s Tim Shepherd:
Most ants live underground, but that doesn’t mean they spend much time in direct contact with the soil. Some nests are worth a detailed look, as not all tunnels through the dirt are as simple as they may first appear:
This Australian Polyrhachis (Campomyrma) has lined its galleries with a fine wood pulp. I took this photograph last month in southern Australia. In the field, I was far too focused on the ants and their larvae to notice the carton substrate. At least, not right away. But once aware of it, I saw that every nest I uncovered had the pulp wallpaper.
This unusual use of organic matter likely provides the benefit of being better insulated and less prone to flooding or drying out than bare soil. The structure may also be a type of carton, meaning it also holds a connective fungus, but I was unable to find any published literature confirming it. In any case, ant nests themselves can be just as surprising as their hosts.
additional reading: Robson, S. K., & Kohout, R. J. (2007). A review of the nesting habits and socioecology of the ant genus Polyrhachis Fr. Smith. Asian Myrmecology, 1, 81-99.
To earn 10 Myrmecos points, be the first person to correctly pick the genus to which this animal belongs. The cumulative points winner for the month of August will win their choice of:
1) A guest post here on Myrmecos
2) Any 8×10 print from my insect photography galleries
3) A myrmecos t-shirt