Summary
Novomessor albisetosus andN. cockerelli foraged most intensively in the evening and morning at soil surface temperatures between 20°C and 40°C. They were not active in the middle of the night and mid-day. In both species, colonies provided with supplementary seeds increased their foraging intensity.N. cockerelli colonies which we provided with high protein food (tuna fish) extended their foraging time and remained active until soil surface temperatures reached lethal levels. Nearly half of the natural forage ofN. cockerelli was insects or insect parts which accounted for only 6.6% of the forage ofN. albisetosus. Approximately 10% of the workers ofN. cockerelli entered and were apparently accepted by colonies other then their “home” conoly. This study demonstrates the importance of both forage availability and forage quality as determinants of activity and forage selection ofNovomessor sp.
Resume
Novomessor albisetosus etNovomessor cockerelli ont une activité de récolte plus importante le soir et le matin à la surface du sol, à des températures entre 20° et 40°. Elles ne sont actives ni à midi ni au milieu de la nuit. Les sociétés des deux espèces que nous avons nourries en graines ont augmenté leur activité de récolte. Les colonies deN. cockerelli auxquelles nous avons fourni de la nourriture riche en protéines (du thon) ont prolongé leur temps de récolte et sont restées actives jusqu'à ce que la température du sol atteigne des valeurs mortelles. Presque la moitié de la récolte deN. cockerelli était constituée d'insectes ou de fragments d'insectes, alors que la récolte deN. albisetosus n'en comportait que 6,6%. Environ 10% des ouvrières deN. cockerelli entrèrent et furent apparemment acceptées dans d'autres sociétés que la leur. Cette étude montre que la qualité de la nourriture disponible joue un rôle déterminant dans l'activité de récolte des FourmisNovomessor.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chew R.M., 1959. — Estimation of ant colony size by the Lincoln Index method.J. New York Entomol., Soc., 67, 157–161.
Chew R.M., 1977. — Some ecological characteristics of the ants of a desert-shrub community in southeastern Arizona.Am. Midl. Nat., 98, 33–49.
Creighton W.S., 1950. — Ants of North America.Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 104, 155–157.
Dlussky G.M., Kupianskaya A.N., 1972. — Consumption of protein food and growth of Myrmica colonies.Ekologia Polska, 20, 73–82.
Lewis T., Pollard G.V., Dibley G.C., 1974. — Micro-environmental factors affecting diel patterns of foraging in the leaf-cutting ant Atta cephalotes (L.) (Formicidae: Attini).J. Anim. Ecol., 43, 143–155.
Pyke G.H., Pulliam H.R., Chranov E.L., 1977. — Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests.Q. Rev. Biol., 52, 137–154.
Rogers L.E., 1974. — Foraging activity of the western harvester ant in the shortgrass plains ecosystem.Environ. Entomol., 3, 420–424.
Talbot M., 1946. — Daily fluctuation in above-ground activity of three species of ants.Ecology, 27, 65–70.
Wheeler W.M., Creighton W.S., 1934. — A study of the ant generaNovomessor andVeromessor.Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 69, 342–354.
Whitford W.G., Ettershank G., 1975. — Factors affecting activity of Chihuahuan desert harvester ants.Environ. Entomol., 4, 689–696.
Whitford W.G., 1976. — Foraging behavior of Chihuahuan desert harvester ants.Am. Midl. Nat., 95, 455–458.
Whitford W.G., Johnson P.L., Ramirez J., 1976. — Comparative ecology of the harvester antsPogonomyrmex barbatus (F. Smith) andPogonomyrmex rugosus (Emery).Ins. Soc., 23, 117–132.
Whitford W.G., 1978 a. — Structure and seasonal activity of Chihuahuan desert ant communities.Ins. Soc., 25, 79–88.
Whitford W.G., 1978 b. — Foraging in seed-harvester antsPogonomyrmex spp.Ecology, 59, 185–189.
Wilson E.O., 1971. — The insect societies.the Belknap Press, Publ., Cambridge Mass., 548 p.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Whitford, W.G., Depree, E. & Johnson, P. Foraging ecology of two chihuahuan desert ant species:Novomessor cockerelli andNovomessor albisetosus . Ins. Soc 27, 148–156 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02229250
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02229250