Abstract
Chemotactile cues unintentionally left by animals can play a major role in predator–prey interactions. Specialized predators can use them to find their prey, while prey individuals can assess predation risk. However, little is known to date about the importance of chemotactile cues for generalist predators such as ants. Here, we investigated the response of a generalized predatory ant, Formica polyctena, to cues of two taxonomically distinct prey: a spider (Pisaura mirabilis) and a cricket (Nemobius sylvestris). In analogy, we studied whether crickets and spiders showed antipredator behavior in response to ant cues. When confronted with cues of the two prey species, Formica polyctena workers showed increased residence time and reduced movement speed, which suggests success-motivated searching behavior and thus increased foraging effort. The ants’ response did not differ between cues of the two prey species, coinciding with similar aggression and consumption rates of dead prey. However, the cuticular hydrocarbons, which likely resemble part of the potential cues, differed strongly between the species, with only few methyl-branched alkanes in common. This suggests that ants respond to multiple compounds left by other organisms with prey-search behavior. The two prey species, in turn, showed no detectable antipredator behavior in response to ant cues. Our study shows that ants can detect and respond to chemotactile cues of taxonomically and ecologically distinct prey species, probably to raise their foraging success. Using such chemotactile cues for prey detection may drastically increase their foraging efficiency and thus contribute to the high ecological success of ants.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agarwala BK, Yasuda H, Kajita Y (2003) Effect of conspecific and heterospecific feces on foraging and oviposition of two predatory ladybirds: role of fecal cues in predator avoidance. J Chem Ecol 29:357–376
Akino T, Yamaoka R (2005) Trail discrimination signal of Lasius japonicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Chemoecology 15:21–30
Al Abassi S, Birkett MA, Pettersson J et al (2000) Response of the seven-spot ladybird to an aphid alarm pheromone and an alarm pheromone inhibitor is mediated by paired olfactory cells. J Chem Ecol 26:1765–1771
Baudoin C, Haim A, Durand J-L (2013) Effect of conspecific and heterospecific urine odors on the foraging behavior of the golden spiny mouse. Integr Zool 8(Suppl 1):1–8
Bell RD, Rypstra AL, Persons MH (2006) The effect of predator hunger on chemically mediated antipredator responses and survival in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Araneae: Lycosidae). Ethology 112:903–910
Binz H, Bucher R, Entling MH, Menzel F (2014a) Knowing the risk: crickets distinguish between spider predators of different size and commonness. Ethology 120:99–110
Binz H, Foitzik S, Staab F, Menzel F (2014b) The chemistry of competition: exploitation of heterospecific cues depends on the dominance rank in the community. Anim Behav 94:45–53
Blomquist GJ, Bagnères A-G (2010) Insect hydrocarbons: biology, biochemistry, and chemical ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York
Bucher R, Binz H, Menzel F, Entling MH (2014) Effects of spider chemotactile cues on arthropod behavior. J Insect Behav 27:567–580
Buehlmann C, Graham P, Hansson BS, Knaden M (2014) Desert ants locate food by combining high sensitivity to food odors with extensive crosswind runs. Curr Biol 24:960–964
Cárdenas M, Jiroš P, Pekár S (2012) Selective olfactory attention of a specialised predator to intraspecific chemical signals of its prey. Naturwissenschaften 99:597–605
Clemente CJ, McMaster KA, Fox E et al (2010) The visual system of the Australian wolf spider Lycosa leuckartii (Araneae: Lycosidae): Visual acuity and the functional role of the eyes. J Arachnol 38:398–406
Collett TS, Collett M (2002) Memory use in insect visual navigation. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:542–552
Czaczkes TJ, Heinze J, Ruther J (2015) Nest etiquette—where ants go when nature calls. PLoS One 10(2):e0118376. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118376
Dall SRX, Giraldeau L-A, Olsson O et al (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193
Dangles O, Magal C, Pierre D et al (2005) Variation in morphology and performance of predator-sensing system in wild cricket populations. J Exp Biol 208:461–468
Dangles O, Ory N, Steinmann T et al (2006) Spider’s attack versus cricket’s escape: velocity modes determine success. Anim Behav 72:603–610
Domisch T, Finér L, Neuvonen S et al (2009) Foraging activity and dietary spectrum of wood ants (Formica rufa group) and their role in nutrient fluxes in boreal forests. Ecol Entomol 34:369–377
Drechsler P, Federle W (2006) Biomechanics of smooth adhesive pads in insects: influence of tarsal secretion on attachment performance. J Comp Physiol A 192:1213–1222
Driessen GJ, Van Raalte AT, De Bruyn GJ (1984) Cannibalism in the red wood ant, Formica polyctena (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Oecologia 63:13–22
Dupuy F, Casas J, Body M, Lazzari CR (2011) Danger detection and escape behavior in wood crickets. J Insect Physiol 57:865–871
Durant SM (2000) Living with the enemy: avoidance of hyenas and lions by cheetahs in the Serengeti. Behav Ecol 11:624–632
Eigenbrode SD, Espelie KE (1995) Effects of plant epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores. Annu Rev Entomol 40:171–194
Ekner A, Tryjanowski P (2008) Do small hole nesting passerines detect cues left by a predator? A test on winter roosting sites. Acta Ornithol 43:107–111
Eltz T (2006) Tracing pollinator footprints on natural flowers. J Chem Ecol 32:907–915. doi:10.1007/s10886-006-9055-6
Evans TA, Inta R, Lai JCS et al (2009) Termites eavesdrop to avoid competitors. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:4035–4041
Federle W (2006) Why are so many adhesive pads hairy? J Exp Biol 209:2611–2621
Federle W, Riehle M, Curtis AS, Full RJ (2002) An integrative study of insect adhesion: mechanics and wet adhesion of pretarsal pads in ants. Integr Comp Biol 42:1100–1106
Foelix RF (2011) Biology of Spiders, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Folgarait PJ (1998) Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodivers Conversat 7:1221–1244
Geiselhardt SF, Geiselhardt S, Peschke K (2009) Comparison of tarsal and cuticular chemistry in the leaf beetle Gastrophysa viridula (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and an evaluation of solid-phase microextraction and solvent extraction techniques. Chemoecology 19:185–193
Geiselhardt SF, Geiselhardt S, Peschke K (2011) Congruence of epicuticular hydrocarbons and tarsal secretions as a principle in beetles. Chemoecology 21:181–186
Greene MJ, Gordon DM (2003) Cuticular hydrocarbons inform task decisions. Nature 423:32
Hawes C, Stewart AJA, Evans HF (2002) The impact of wood ants (Formica rufa) on the distribution and abundance of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a scots pine plantation. Oecologia 131:612–619
Hergenröder R, Barth FG (1983) The release of attack and escape behavior by vibratory stimuli in a wandering spider (Cupiennius salei Keys.). J Comp Physiol A 152:347–358
Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1977) Colony-specific territorial pheromone in the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74:2072–2075
Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The Ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Horstmann K (1982) Die Energiebilanz der Waldameise (Formica polyctena) in einem Eichenwald. Insectes Soc 29:402–421
Hughes NK, Price CJ, Banks PB (2010) Predators are attracted to the olfactory signals of prey. PLoS One 5:5–8
Hunter JS, Durant SM, Caro TM (2007) To flee or not to flee: predator avoidance by cheetahs at kills. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1033–1042
Jędrzejewski W, Rychlik L, Jędrzejewska B (1993) Responses of bank voles to odours of seven species of predators: experimental data and their relevance to natural data and their experimental relationships. Oikos 68:251–257
Kats LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394
Labonte D, Federle W (2015) Rate-dependence of ‘wet’ biological adhesives and the function of the pad secretion in insects. Soft Matter 11:8661–8673
Lang C, Menzel F (2011) Lasius niger ants discriminate aphids based on their cuticular hydrocarbons. Anim Behav 82:1245–1254
Leonhardt SD, Menzel F, Nehring V, Schmitt T (2016) Ecology and evolution of communication in social insects. Cell 164:1277–1287
Martin S, Drijfhout F (2009) A review of ant cuticular hydrocarbons. J Chem Ecol 35:1151–1161
McCormick AC, Unsicker SB, Gershenzon J (2012) The specificity of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in attracting herbivore enemies. Trends Plant Sci 17:303–310
McDougall P, Milne H (1968) The anti-predator function of defecation on their own eggs by female Eiders. Wildfowl 29:55–59
Menzel F, Blüthgen N, Tolasch T et al (2013) Crematoenones—a novel substance class exhibited by ants functions as appeasement signal. Front Zool 10:32
Mestre L, Bucher R, Entling MH (2014) Trait-mediated effects between predators: ant chemical cues induce spider dispersal. J Zool 293:119–125
Morgan ED (2009) Trail pheromones of ants. Physiol Entomol 34:1–17
Pearce-Duvet JMC, Feener DHJ (2010) Resource discovery in ant communities: do food type and quantity matter? Ecol Entomol 35:549–556
Peattie AM, Dirks JH, Henriques S, Federle W (2011) Arachnids secrete a fluid over their adhesive pads. PLoS ONE 6:e20485
Persons MH, Rypstra AL (2001) Wolf spiders show graded antipredator behavior in the presence of chemical cues from different sized predators. J Chem Ecol 27:2493–2504
Persons MH, Walker SE, Rypstra AL, Marshall SD (2001) Wolf spider predator avoidance tactics and survival in the presence of diet-associated predator cues (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav 61:43–51
Persons MH, Walker SE, Rypstra AL (2002) Fitness costs and benefits of antipredator behavior mediated by chemotactile cues in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav Ecol 13:386–392
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S et al (2012) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, Version 3.1-110. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/index.html
Roberts MJ (1996) Collins field guide to the spiders of Britain and Northern Europe. HarperCollins, London
Rosengren R, Fortelius W (1986) Ortstreue in foraging ants of the Formica rufa group—hierarchy of orienting cues and long-term memory. Insectes Soc 33:306–337
Rypstra AL, Buddle CM (2013) Spider silk reduces insect herbivory. Biol Lett 9:20120948
Schatz B, Hossaert-McKey M (2010) Ants use odour cues to exploit fig–fig wasp interactions. Acta Oecol 36:107–113
Schatz B, Anstett M-C, Out W, Hossaert-McKey M (2003) Olfactive detection of fig wasps as prey by the ant Crematogaster scutellaris (Formicidae; Myrmicinae). Naturwissenschaften 90:456–459
Seifert B (2007) Die Ameisen Mittel- und Nordeuropas. lutra Verlag, Görlitz
Storm JJ, Lima SL (2008) Predator-naïve fall field crickets respond to the chemical cues of wolf spiders. Can J Zool 86:1259–1263
R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Version 3.0.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org, Vienna, Austria
Uhl G (2013) Spider olfaction: attracting, detecting, luring and avoiding. In: Nentwig W (ed) Spider ecophysiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany
Van der Aart PJM, De Wit T (1971) A field study on interspecific competition between ants (Formicidae) and hunting spiders (Lycosidae, Gnaphosidae, Ctenidae, Pisauridae, Clubionidae). Neth J Zool 21:117–126
Van Zweden JS, D’Ettorre P (2010) Nestmate recognition in social insects and the role of hydrocarbons. In: Blomquist GJ, Bagnères A-G (eds) Insect hydrocarbons: biology, biochemistry, and chemical ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 222–243
Vinson SB (1977) Behavioral chemicals in the augmentation of natural enemies. In: Ridgeway SBV (ed) Biological control by augmentation of natural enemies. Plenum, New York, pp 237–279
Weier JA, Feener DHJ (1995) Foraging in the seed-harvester ant genus Pogonomyrmex: are energy costs important? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:291–300
Wüst M, Menzel F (in press) I smell where you walked—how chemical cues influence movement decisions in ants. Oikos. doi:10.1111/oik.03332
Zhou X, Slone JD, Rokas A et al (2012) Phylogenetic and transcriptomic analysis of chemosensory receptors in a pair of divergent ant species reveals sex-specific signatures of odor coding. PLoS Genet 8:e1002930
Acknowledgments
We thank Roman Bucher for sharing his knowledge about arthropod behavior. We are very grateful to Diethelm Freise-Harenberg from the local nature conservation authority, Mainz-Bingen, Germany, and Jürgen Koch from the forestry commission office Rhine-Hesse, Germany, for providing collection permit for Formica polyctena worker groups. The study was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Grant Number ME3842/2-1 to Florian Menzel. The authors have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handling Editor: Michael Heethoff.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Binz, H., Kraft, E.F., Entling, M.H. et al. Behavioral response of a generalist predator to chemotactile cues of two taxonomically distinct prey species. Chemoecology 26, 153–162 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-016-0215-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-016-0215-z