Unusual Behavior of Ants to Sugar Baits in Summer 2015

About the authors:

Alexey V. Gilyov, Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Leading Researcher, Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Department of RAS (Yekaterinburg); gilev@ipae.uran.ru

Olga B. Gilyova, Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Senior Researcher Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Department of RAS (Yekaterinburg); ogileva@narod.ru

Abstract:

Accounting for carbohydrate baits (“sugar shooting”) is a method widely used to study various aspects of the ants biology. In the summer of 2015, we studied the visit activity and the behavior of ants of different species with the use of carbohydrate baits in the taiga biocenoses of the Middle Urals. A phenomenon of rejecting the carbohydrate baits by workers of several species of ants was discovered. In total, 11 species of ants of 5 genera declined sugar syrup: Formica aquilonia, F. rufa, F. pratensis, F. fusca, F. rufibarbis, F. exsecta, Lasius niger, Myrmica rubra, M. ruginodis, Leptothorax acervorum, Tetramorium caespitum. At the same time, the activity of working individuals of all kinds was high, the red forest ants continued to visit the colonies of aphids. The refusal of sugar syrup was observed from the middle of August until the end of the season. The phenomenon was clearly local in nature, in other places all kinds of ants actively visited carbohydrate baits. In the summer of 2016, no carbohydrate baits were observed. The cause of this phenomenon could be the unfavorable weather conditions in 2015, combined with some local factors that affected the course of certain stages of the seasonal cycle in ants and caused a corresponding change in food preferences. The presence of space-time variations in food preferences in ants should be taken into account when carrying out the calculations on carbohydrate baits.

References:

1. Agosti D. et al. (eds). 2000. Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
2. Alder P., Silverman J. 2004. “A Comparison of Monitoring Methods Used to Detect Changes in Argentine Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Populations”. Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology, vol. 21, no 3, pp. 142–149.
3. Dlussky G. M., Voltzit O. V., Sulkhanov A. V. 1978. “Organizatsiya gruppovoy furazhirovki u murav'ev roda Myrmica” [Organization of Group Foraging in Ants of the Genus Myrmica]. Entomological Review, vol. 57, no 1, pp. 65–77.
4. Fowler H. G., Delabie J. H. C., Moutinho P. R. S. 2000. “Hypogaeic and Epigaeic Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Assemblages of Atlantic Costal Rainforest and Dry Mature and Secondary Amazon Forest in Brazil: Continuums or Communities”. Tropical Ecology, vol. 41, no 1, pp. 73–80.
5. Ivanov S. P., Stukalyuk S. V. 2002-2003. “Vidovoy sostav i struktura soobshchestv murav'ev (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) krymskikh yayl” [Specific Composition and Structure of Ants Communities (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Mountainous Plateaus in Crimea]. Izvestiya Khar'kovskogo entomologicheskogo obshchestva (The Kharkov Entomological Society Gazette), vol. 10, nos 1–2, pp. 135–141.
6. Kuznetsova I. A., Golovatin M. G., Gilyov A. V. et al. 2014. Itogi monitoringa sostojaniya prirodnoy sredy osobo okhranyaemyh prirodnykh territoriy Sverdlovskoy oblasti [The Results of the Monitoring of the Natural Environment of Protected Areas of the Sverdlovsk Region]. Yekaterinburg: Ural Federal University.
7. Kuznetsova I. A., Golovatin M. G., Gilyov A. V. et al. 2015. Osobo okhranyaemye prirodnye territorii Sverdlovskoy oblasti: monitoring sostoyaniya prirodnoy sredy [Protected Areas of the Sverdlovsk Region: Monitoring the State of the Environment]. Yekaterinburg: Ural Federal University.
8. Milford E. R. 1999. “Ant Communities in Flooded and Unflooded Riparian Forest of the Middle Rio Grande”. Southwestern Naturalist, vol. 44, no 3, pp. 278–286.
9. Putyatina T. S. 2007. “Vybor strategii furazhirovki kak mekhanizm sosushchestvovaniya vidov Myrmica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) v mnogovidovoy assotsiatsii murav'ev” [The Choice of Foraging Strategy as a Mechanism for the Coexistence of Myrmica Species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a Multispecific Association]. Entomological Review, vol. 87, no 6. P. 650–657. 
10. Putyatina T. S. 2011. “Povedenie murav'ev raznykh vidov pri sovmestnoy furazhirovke” [The Behavior of Ants of Different Species during Joint Foraging]. Entomological Review, vol. 91, no 2, pp. 264–273.
11. Tripp J. M., Suiter D. R., Bennett G. W., Klotz J. H., Reid B. L. 2000. “Evaluation of control measures for black carpenter ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)”. Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 93, no 5, pp. 1493–1497. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-93.5.1493
12. Vepsalainen K., Savolainen R. 1990. “The Effect of Interference by Formicine Ants on the Foraging of Myrmica”. Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 59, no 2, pp. 643–654. DOI: 10.2307/4886
13. Zakharov A. A. 1972. Vnutrividovye otnoshenija u murav'ev [Intraspecific Relations in Ants]. Moscow: Nauka.
14. Zakharov A. A., Zakharov R. A. 2013. “Vliyanie zoogennykh i klimaticheskikh faktorov na godichnyy tsikl zhizni muraveynika gruppy Formica rufa” [Influence of Zoogenic and Climatic Factors on the Annual Cycle of Anthill Life in the Formica rufa-Group]. Proceedings of the 14th All-Russian Myrmecological Symposium “Muravyi i zashchita lesa” [Ants and Forest Protection] (Moscow, August), pp. 210–215. Moscow: KMK press.
15. Zryanin V. A. 2011. “Analiz lokal'noy fauny murav'ev (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Yuzhnogo V'etnama” [Analysis of the Local Ant Fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Southern Vietnam]. Entomological Review, vol. 91, no 2, pp. 198–211.