Adventures Among Ants - Mark W. Moffett [169]
4. MK Peters, S Likare, M Kraemer 2008, Effects of habitat fragmentation and degradation on flocks of African ant-following birds, Ecol. Appl. 18: 847–858. In tropical America, the birds snatch enough food to reduce the ants’ raid productivity; see PH Wrege, M Wikelski, JT Mandel, T Rassweiler, ID Couzin 2005, Antbirds parasitize foraging army ants, Ecology 86: 555–559.
5. C Schöning, W Njagi, W Kinuthia 2008, Prey spectra of two swarm-raiding army ant species in East Africa, J. Zool. 274: 85–93. For a possible prey specialist army ant, see WH Gotwald Jr. 1978, Trophic ecology and adaptation in tropical Old World ants of the subfamily Dorylinae, Biotropica 10: 161–169.
6. For an excellent experiment on dietary specialization, see A Dejean, B Schatz, J Orivel, G Beugnon, JP Lachaud, B Corbara 1999, Feeding preferences in African ponerine ants: A cafeteria experiment, Sociobiology 34: 555–568.
7. B Schatz, J-P Suzzoni, B Corbara, A Dejean 2001, Selection and capture of prey in the African ponerine ant Plectroctena minor, Acta Oecol. 22: 55–60.
8. Leafcutters are the ultimate example of learned preferences in ants; they tolerate only the single strain of fungus in their own nest and not the strains of their neighbors (see chapter 15).
9. A Dejean, R Fénéron 1999, Predatory behaviour in the ponerine ant, Centromyrmex bequaerti: A case of termitolesty, Behav. Processes 47: 125–133.
10. Because most ants at an army ant raid front are small, size matching during foraging per se may not be significant. Size matching and differences in size preference can occur both within and between colonies of the same and different species; see, e.g., M Kaspari 1996, Worker size and seed size selection by harvester ants in a neotropical forest, Oecologia 105: 397–404; and JFA Traniello, SN Beshers 1991, Polymorphism and size-pairing in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex badius: A test of the ecological release hypothesis, Insectes Soc. 38: 121–127. The efficiency of polymorphism can be addressed using a “pseudomutant technique” of removing selected size classes. This method has shown that in leafcutter ants, the young colonies contain the minimal size range of workers to perform efficiently; although their division of labor is flexible, a colony with the “optimal” worker size-frequency distribution may still be most efficient; see EO Wilson 1985, The sociogenesis of insect colonies, Science 228: 1489–1495.
11. C Schöning, W Kinuthia, NR Franks 2005, Evolution of allometries in the worker caste of Dorylus army ants, Oikos 110: 231–240; M Kaspari, MD Weiser 1999, The size-grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants, Funct. Ecol. 13: 530–538.
12. SM Berghoff, A Weissflog, KE Linsenmair, R Hashim, U Maschwitz 2002, Foraging of a hypogaeic army ant: A long neglected majority, Insectes Soc. 49: 133–141; SM Berghoff, A Weissflog, KE Linsenmair, M Mohamed, U Maschwitz 2002, Nesting habits and colony composition of the hypogaeic army ant Dorylus (Dichthadia) laevigatus, Insectes Soc. 49: 380–387.
13. A Weissflog, E. Sternheim, WHO Dorow, S Berghoff, U Maschwitz 2000, How to study subterranean army ants: A novel method for locating and monitoring field populations of the South East Asian army ant Dorylus (Dichthadia) laevigatus with observations on their ecology, Insectes Soc. 47: 317–324.
14. Henry Walter Bates, Naturalist on the River Amazon (London: Bradbury & Evans, 1864). As we shall see in chapter 14, this is an example of task partitioning; see C Anderson, FLW Ratnieks 2000, Task partitioning in insect societies: Novel situations, Insectes Soc. 47: 198–199.
15. TD Seeley, PK Visscher 2003, Choosing a home: How the scouts in a honeybee swarm perceive the completion of their group decision making, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54: 511–520.
16. NR Franks, SC Pratt, EB Mallon, NF Britton, DJT Sumpter 2002, Information flow, opinion polling, and collective intelligence in house-hunting social insects, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 357: 1567–1584; PK Visscher 2007, Group decision making in nest-site