dcsimg

Taxonomic History

provided by Antweb
Formica polyctena Foerster, 1850a: 15 (w.q.m.) GERMANY. Palearctic. AntCat AntWiki HOL

Taxonomic history

As unavailable (infrasubspecific) name: Emery, 1916a PDF: 255; Krausse, 1926b: 115.Junior synonym of Formica rufa: Smith, 1851 PDF: 115; Mayr, 1855 PDF: 328; Nylander, 1856b PDF: 60; Smith, 1858a PDF: 3; Mayr, 1863a PDF: 420; Roger, 1863b PDF: 12; Smith, 1871c: 1; Dours, 1873 PDF: 165; André, 1874c: 202 (in list); Forel, 1874 PDF: 98 (in list); Emery & Forel, 1879 PDF: 450; Dalla Torre, 1893 PDF: 208; Wheeler, 1913i PDF: 425; Donisthorpe, 1915f: 245; Donisthorpe, 1927c: 286; Karavaiev, 1936: 240; Gösswald, 1941 PDF: 73; Yarrow, 1955a PDF: 3.Subspecies of Formica rufa: Forel, 1915d: 58 (in key); Emery, 1925d PDF: 253; Lomnicki, 1925a PDF: 23 (in key); Stärcke, 1926a PDF: 150 (in key); Stitz, 1939: 339; Stärcke, 1947 PDF: 146 (in text); Van Boven, 1947b PDF: 189 (in key).Status as species: Schenck, 1852 PDF: 25; Bondroit, 1917a PDF: 174; Bondroit, 1918 PDF: 57; Müller, 1923b PDF: 144; Betrem, 1926 PDF: 212; Betrem, 1953 PDF: 324 (in key); Betrem, 1960b: 76 (in key); Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 93; Kutter, 1968b: 61; Pisarski, 1969b: 313; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1970 PDF: 89; Baroni Urbani, 1971c PDF: 221; Collingwood, 1971 PDF: 168; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 187 (redescription); Banert & Pisarski, 1972 PDF: 356; Pisarski, 1975: 49; Van Boven, 1977 PDF: 169; Kutter, 1977c: 272; Collingwood, 1978 PDF: 94 (in key); Arnol'di & Dlussky, 1978: 554 (in key); Collingwood, 1979 PDF: 144; Douwes, 1979 PDF: 187; Mabelis, 1979: 451; Douwes, 1981b PDF: 217; Agosti & Collingwood, 1987a PDF: 59; Agosti & Collingwood, 1987b PDF: 287 (in key); Nilsson & Douwes, 1987: 86; Gösswald, 1989: 18; Wu, 1990 PDF: 6 (in key); Atanassov & Dlussky, 1992: 279; Radchenko, 1994b: 114 (in key); Douwes, 1995: 98; Bolton, 1995b: 201; Poldi et al., 1995: 8; Wu & Wang, 1995a: 145; Czechowski & Douwes, 1996: 125; Espadaler, 1997g PDF: 28; Gallé et al., 1998: 218; Tinaut & Martínez-Ibañez, 1998d PDF: 37 (in key); Czechowski et al., 2002 PDF: 73; Karaman & Karaman, 2003 PDF: 50; Csosz & Markó, 2005 PDF: 231; Karaman & Karaman, 2005 PDF: 60; Bračko, 2006 PDF: 147; Markó et al., 2006 PDF: 67; Petrov, 2006 PDF: 113 (in key); Bračko, 2007 PDF: 20; Seifert, 2007: 311; Werner & Wiezik, 2007 PDF: 144; Zryanin & Zryanina, 2007 PDF: 233; Casevitz-Weulersse & Galkowski, 2009 PDF: 482; Lapeva-Gjonova et al., 2010 PDF: 51; Boer, 2010: 27; Csosz et al., 2011 PDF: 59; Karaman, 2011a PDF: 81; Borowiec & Salata, 2012 PDF: 495; Czechowski et al., 2012: 193; Guénard & Dunn, 2012 PDF: 32; Borowiec, 2014 PDF: 77; Bharti et al., 2016 PDF: 27; Lebas et al., 2016: 176; Radchenko, 2016: 286; Salata & Borowiec, 2018c 10.5281/zenodo.2199191 PDF: 44; Seifert, 2018: 322.[Note: Seifert, 2018: 321 reports on Formica polyctena × Formica rufa hybrids.].Senior synonym of Formica major: Radchenko, 2007 PDF: 37.[Note: Radchenko, 2007 PDF: 37, argues that Formica major is best regarded as a nomen oblitum; therefore Formica polyctena takes priority.].Senior synonym of Formica minor: Betrem, 1960b: 64; Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 93; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 187; Pisarski, 1975: 49; Bolton, 1995b: 201; Czechowski et al., 2002 PDF: 73; Karaman, 2011a PDF: 81; Czechowski et al., 2012: 193; Radchenko, 2016: 286.Senior synonym of Formica rufa nuda: Stärcke, 1947 PDF: 145 (in text); Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 93; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 187; Bolton, 1995b: 201; Radchenko, 2016: 286.
license
cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
copyright
California Academy of Sciences
bibliographic citation
AntWeb. Version 8.45.1. California Academy of Science, online at https://www.antweb.org. Accessed 15 December 2022.
original
visit source
partner site
Antweb

Diagnostic Description

provided by Plazi (legacy text)

Records

(Map 67): Bulgaria ( Seifert 2008 ); Danubian Plain: Dachi usoi loc., Dalga polyana loc. ( Wesselinoff 1973 ); Eastern Stara Planina Mts: Balgarka peak,Vetrila peak , Zheravna ( Wesselinoff 1973 ); Golo bardo Mt.: around Radomir ( Atanassov and Dlusskij 1992 ); Rila Mt.: Malyovitsa peak, southwest of Govedartsi vill. ( Atanassov and Dlusskij 1992 ); Pirin Mt.: Mocharata loc. ( Wesselinoff 1973 ).

Conservation Status:

Lower Risk/near threatened (IUCN).

license
not applicable
bibliographic citation
Lapeva-Gjonova, Albena, 2010, Catalogue of the ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Bulgaria, ZooKeys, pp. 1-124, vol. 62
author
Lapeva-Gjonova, Albena
original
visit source
partner site
Plazi (legacy text)

Diagnostic Description

provided by Plazi (legacy text)

Operaria: Rufo-ferrnginea, nuda, cinereo-micans, fronte cum occipite et abdomine castaneo-fuscis, clypci, pro- et mesonoti dorso mcdio, palpis, antennis pedibusque fuscescentibus; metathoracis parte dorsali longitudincm partis declivis aequante; squama sursum latiori rotundata vel subtruncata.

Long. 2 1/2-3 lin.

Femina: Bufo-ferruginea, nuda, fronte cum occipite, nictanoto cum scutello et abdomine (praeter basin et apicem) nigris; clypei medio, antennis, palpis, meso3tcrno, tibiis tarsisque fuscescentibus; mandibulis apicem versus subrugosis, evidenter punetatis; foveolis clypei lateralibus laevibus; area frontali nitida, subpunetulata; squama lata subrhomboidali, marginc supero inaequali vel subemarginata; alis fuscescentibus, apice subhyalinis, nervis fusco-testaeeis, stigmate fuscescente. Lg. 4 lin.

Mas: Fusco-niger, sparst suhtiliter pubescens, pedibus aut rufo-ferrugineis, coxis et femorum basi tantum aut totis fuscescentibus; mandibulis unidentatis; area frontali opaca; squama crassa, apicc late tenuitcr emarginata; alis ctiain obscurioribus. Lg. 4 lin.

Diese Art steht der Formica rufa , welche aber in Nadelholzwäldern lebt und deren weitläufigere Karakteristik von Nylander wohl sehr zuverläßig dargestellt worden ist, sehr nahe und könnte leicht damit verwechselt werden. Die Bildung des Metathorax dürßte vielleicht allein das sicherste unterscheidende Merkmal nächst der Lebensweise abgeben. Der Kopf des Arbeiters ist roth, Stirn, Scheitel und Hinterhaupt, letzteres theilweise, sammt den Fühlern und Tastern braun. Der Clypeus und die Mandibeln rotii, der erstre in der Mitte ziemlich scharf gekielt, der Kiel bricht aber ganz nahe vor dem Stirnfeld ab; ein schmaler, bräunlicherStreißen durchzieht von unten bis oben den ganzen Clypeus in der Mitte. In gleicher Richtung ist derselbe fein nadelrissig und ßein , aber etwas zertreut punktirt, bloß der ganze obere Rand bis zu den tiefen Seitengruben hin, so wie diese selbst glatt. Die Mandibeln rolh, deutlich der Länge nach runzlig und stark punktirt, 8- zähnig . Seitwärts am Kopfe ist die rothe Farbe sehr ausgedehnt, so daß beinahe das ganze Netzauge damit eingefaßt erscheint. Das Stirnfeld erscheint ganz glatt, ohne Spur von Punkten, eine feine, eingedrückte Linie zieht sich von der Spitze desselben bis zu dem vorderen Nebenauge hinauf. Die Nebenaugen sind zwar nicht groß , aber leicht bemerkbar. Die Sculptur des Kopfes äußerst fein und dicht ledorartig-runzlig, dabei eben so fein punktirt und behaart, die Härchen dicht anliegend, kurz und nicht so deutlich wahrzunehmen wie auf dem Hinterleib. Uebrigens hat der Mittel- und Hinterleib mit dem Kopfe genau dieselbe Sculptur gemein. Die Fühler braun, die Taster genau wie bei der Form. truncicola Nyl. Der Mittelleib rolh, auf dem Vorderbrustrücken steht ein kleiner, runder Flecken ein wenig vor dem Hinterrande und ein noch viel kleinerer, leicht zu übersehender Querfleck an der Basis des Mittelbrustrückens . Der Metathorax zeichnet diese Art besonders von der Form. rufa *) aus, denn die abschüssige Stelle ist genau von derselben Länge wie der Rückentheil , während bei F. rufa , der Rückentheil um das Doppelte kürzer sein soll als die abschüssige Stelle, Die Beine braun, die Hüften , die Schenkelringe so wie die äußerste Basis und Spitze der Schenkel roth, erstre aber an der vorderen Seite und bisweilen fast ganz braun. Die Schenkel nackt, aber die Schienen auf der innern Seite mit zerstreuten Borstenhaaren nicht dicht besetzt. Das lte Segment des Hinterleibs roth, die Schuppe ziemlich hoch, nach oben breit, beinahe pentagona), jedoch mit sehr stumpfen Ecken, daher mehr zugerundet und oben in der Mitte fast grade abgestutzt. Der Hinterleib, mit Auschluß des lten Segments, erscheint fast kugelig, dunkelbraun, mit einem schwachen, grauen Seidenglanz, das 2te Segment an der Basis und das Aftersegment roth; der Hinterrand der übrigen sehr schmal, und häufig rothgelb durchscheinend. Die ganze Oberseite ist mit kurzen, zerstreuten, gelblichen Borstenhaaren besetzt, an dem Aftersegment und an der Bauchseite sind diese Haare viel länger . An Kopf und Thorax so wie auch an der Schuppe fehlen die Borstenhaare gänzlich und durch Mangel derselben läßt sich diese Art leicht von congerens und truncicola Nyl. unterscheiden.

Das Weibchen ist roth, die Stirn mit dem Hinterhaupt, der Mittelbrustrücken mit dem Schildchen und der Hinterleib (mit Ausnahme des Stiels sammt der Schuppe, der Basis des 2ten Segments und mehr oder weniger auch der Hinterleibsspitze selbst), dunkel schwarzbraun oder dunkel kastanienbraun. Die Sculptur äußerst fein lederartig runzlig, am Kopf und Mittelleib jedoch noch deutlicher als auf dem Hinterleib. Die Punktirung an jenen Theilen auch dichter und deutlicher als an diesem. Aufrecht stehende Haare fehlen selbst auf der Bauchseite und nur an der Spitze des Hinterleibs sieht man einige zerstreute Borsten. Die niederliegenden Härchen sind äußerst fein, sehr klein und nur schwierig zu erkennen. Am Kopf sind die Mandibeln 8- zähnig , an der Spitze längsrunzlig , aber nicht dicht, ebendaselbst stark und deutlich punktirt. Der Clypeus ist fein und dicht längsrunzlig , fein punktirt mit glatten Seitengruben, in der Mitte der ganzen Länge nach breit schwarzbraun, auch der Mundrand fein braun gesäumt , eben nicht weit unter dem Stirnfeld querüber leicht und mehr oder weniger deutlich eingedrückt und der Länge nach gekielt. Das Stirnfeld deutlich abgesetzt, roth, glatt, stark glänzend , mit wenigen feinen Pünktchen am obern Seitenrande. Die Stirn mit einer feinen eingedrückten Mittellinie, welche bis zu dem mittlem Nebenauge ununterbrochen hinaufreicht. Die Netzaugen nackt. Die Taster und Fühler braun, der Schaft mehr oder weniger roth. Der Vorderbrustrücken am Hinterrande in der Mitte braun, der Mittelbrustrücken mit den gewöhnlichen 3 vertieften Längslinien . Das Schildchen nicht glänzender als jener. Die Beine rolh, Tibien und Tarsen bräunlich . Die Flügel rauch-grau, die Spitze heller, die Adern bräunlich gelb, das Randmal bräunlich , die Flügelwurzel sammt dem Schüppchen roth, letzteres mit bräunlicher Spitze. Die 1. Diskoidalzelle trapezoidisch, oben ungefaehr % so breit wie unten. Die Schuppe breit, fast rhomboidalisch, der Rand oben in der Mitte etwas ungleich, entweder etwas eingedrückt oder sehr schwach ausgerandet, der Rand ohne Wimperhaare. Die übrigen Segmente zusammengenommen fast kugelig-eiförmig , etwas glän- zender als der Mittelleib, die Punktirung nach der Spitze des Hinterleibs hin allmählig zerstreuter. Das 1te Segment an der Basis und das Aftersegment so wie mitunter einige Flecken auf der Bauchseite roth. Haarborsten sieht man nur wenige zerstreute an dem letzten Segment.

Das Männchen ist tießchwarz , glanzlos, dicht runzlig, etwas zerstreut punktirt, dicht mit anliegenden aber viel längeren Haaren bedeckt und mit abstehenden, ziemlich kurzen Borstenhaaren versehen. Die Mandibeln einzähnig , die Taster und Fühler braun; der Clypeus runzlig, auch die Seitengruben, schwach gekielt, oben etwas unter dem Stirnfeld mit einem tieferen Quereindruck wie bei dem Weibchen, unmittelbar unter dem Stirnfeld in der Mitte mit einem runden, glatten, glänzendenGrübchen . Das Stirnfeld durch dichte Punktirung. fast matt, ziemlich deutlich abgegrenzt, unmittelbar an der Spitze desselben die Stirn etwas erhöht , hierdurch, so wie durch die ziemlich eng zusammengedrängten , kurzen, etwas hervortretenden Stirnlamellen werden zwischen der Fühlerwurzel zwei nicht undeutliche Gruben gebildet. Die Augen sparsam behaart. Das Mesonotum hat die 3 gewöhnlichen , vertieften Linien. Der Hinterbrustrückenglänzend , auch die Schuppe; der Hinterleib, und an diesem vorzugsweise ein schmaler Saum an der Basis der Segmente und dann der Bauch haben denselben Glanz. Die Beine entweder roth mit braunen Hüften und brauner Basis der Schenkel, oder vorherrschend braun, so daß nur die Basis der Miltetechienen und die hintersten Schienen bis zur Mitte, so wie auch an den hintersten Füssen das lte Glied ungefähr bis zur Mitte roth erscheint. Die Flügel rauchgrau, nur die Spitze heller, das Geäder wie bei dem Weibchen, die erste Diskoidalzelle zeigt dasselbe Breitenverhaltnißs unten und oben wie bei jenem. Die Schuppe dick, an der Spitze breit aber nur leicht ausgerandet. Der Hinterleib durch die ziemlich dichte, anliegende Behaarung etwas matt, aber mit stark glänzender Basis der einzelnen Segmente, besonders in deren Mitte, wo der glänzende Theil am breitesten ist. Der Bauch ebenfalls stark glänzend . Die Genitalien roth.

Diese Art findet sich bei Stollberg in der Nahe von Aachen, und zwar an einem Abhänge unter Laubholz, wo sie an der Erde eine Menge nicht weit auseinander liegender Haufen bildet. Sie sind aus kleinen Stückchendünner Zweige, untermischt mit vertrockneten Laubknospen von Fagus silvatica, construiri, flach, aber sehr breit, so daß die größten wohl bis 6 Fußs im Durchmesser haben.

license
not applicable
bibliographic citation
Förster, A., Hymenopterologische Studien. 1. Formicariae., pp. -
author
Förster, A.
original
visit source
partner site
Plazi (legacy text)

Formica polyctena

provided by wikipedia EN

Formica polyctena is a species of European red wood ant in the genus Formica and large family Formicidae. The species was first described by Arnold Förster in 1850. The latin species name polyctena is from Greek and literally means 'many cattle', referring to the species' habit of farming aphids for honeydew food.[2] It is found in many European countries. It is a eusocial species, that has a distinct caste system of sterile workers and a very small reproductive caste.[3] The ants have a genetic based cue that allow them to identify which other ants are members of their nest and which are foreign individuals.[4] When facing these types of foreign invaders the F. polyctena has a system to activate an alarm. It can release pheromones which can trigger an alarm response in other nearby ants.[5]

It is found in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine.[6]

Behavior

Eusociality

Formica polyctena like many ant, wasp and bee species, displays a eusocial system. Eusocial insects are characterized by cooperative care of young among members of a colony, distinct caste systems where some individuals breed and most individuals are sterile helpers, and overlapping generations so mother, adult offspring and immature offspring are all living at the same time. In a eusocial colony, an individual is assigned a specialized caste before they become reproductively mature, which makes them behaviorally distinct from other castes.[3] Red wood ants exhibit all of these characteristics, with queens and males that make up the reproductive caste and sterile female workers that aid in brood care and colony maintenance.

Worker sterility

Workers in ant colonies are typically sterile females that do not reproduce. F. polyctena is consistent with this model, with almost completely sterile workers that do not lay eggs. This is in contrast to other Formica species that have workers that actually do reproduce, disrupting the eusocial system. F. polyctena’s high proportion of worker sterility indicates a strict obligate polygynous colony structure that most likely allows for a stable unicoloniality, or the cooperation of several nests. In other words, workers do not have the ability to disrupt the strict social segregation of reproduction by reproducing themselves. Thus they uphold a multi-queen, multi-nest cooperation that may not be advantageous to their genes since they act altruistically toward non-kin.[7]

Foragers

In F. polyctena colonies, there appears to be a separate group of designated foraging workers. The number of foragers correlates with the size of the colony. Foragers also tend to be older workers. However, if foragers are lost or die, other workers from the nest can replace them, indicating some flexibility in designated roles within the colony. These replacement workers have a shorter life expectancy as foragers, indicating that there could be some physiological development as the workers age that allows them to be effective foragers.[8]

Nestmate recognition

In order to prevent costly conflict between fellow nestmates or involuntarily altruistic behavior toward ants from a foreign nest, individual ants need to distinguish between their fellow nestmates and foreigners. It has been demonstrated that Formica polyctena uses genetically-based cues as a nestmate recognition mechanism. Since F. polyctena, like all ant species, lives in colonies with high genetic relatedness, this type of mechanism would be successful in distinguishing between colonies. Beye, Neumann and Moritz conducted a study where pairs of ants from different nest were introduced to each other to see if they fought, tolerated or avoided one another. Pairs of ants from the same nests were introduced as well to act as a control. Genetic similarity between these ants was measured as well. A strong positive correlation existed between antagonistic behavior and genetic dissimilarity. Thus, F. polyctena ants mostly likely recognize their fellow workers through some genetically produced signal. Nest populations in close physical proximity to one another didn’t necessarily demonstrate either extremely aggressive or passive behavior toward each other, indicating that nest proximity does not influence recognition. Additionally, nest distance did not correlate with genetic similarity.[4] Essentially, F. polyctena has adapted some form of genetically-based cue that allows nestmates to distinguish between each other and foreign individuals. Beye, Neumann and Moritz believe that these genetic cues act to keep nest colonies separate in homogenous environments that offer no other nestmate recognition strategies.[9]

Alarm signals

Alarm behavior can be triggered in Formica polyctena by the release of pheromones. When ants come across a specific pheromone, they approach the source with jaws wide open, as if confronting a threat. Specifically in F. polyctena, these chemical alarm signals elicit a response not only within the nest, but along foraging paths. In particular, the formic acid sprayed by ants when attacked can trigger a predator alarm response in nearby ants, gathering reinforcements to attack the predator. In this way, formic acid doubles as a chemical weapon against predators and an alarm signal in F. polyctena.[5]

Disease resistance

Due to the close living situation of individuals in a F. polyctena colony, diseases can spread rapidly, causing significant damage to the colony’s population. Therefore, F. polyctena has evolved responses to combat the spread of disease. When an individual ant develops an immune response to some disease, the other workers can sense this. The workers decrease mouth-to-mouth exchanges of liquid, and prevent the infected individual from moving around. The healthy workers also increase antennal contact and grooming of the infected ant. This is believed to either remove pathogens from the ant that could cause such an immune response, or act as a “social vaccination.” Aubert and Richard proposed this social vaccination model, where they argue that if fellow nestmates groom an infected ant, they will be exposed to small amounts of the pathogens or molecules that could trigger an immune response within the healthy individuals. In essence, the healthy individuals develop a resistance to the pathogens carried by the infected individual before the pathogens can spread and infect them.[10]

Wars and cannibalism

F. polyctena colonies wage wars on neighboring colonies. During wars, any dead ants are cannibalized by the colonies. These wars occur when food is scarce, usually during the spring months, so that the colonies can effectively feed a new generation of ants. Old workers commonly participate in these wars, due to their lower life expectancy than young workers. Spring wars allow the colonies to produce new generations consisting mainly of reproductives (queens and males) rather than workers. The rare wars during the summer and fall months produce food for new generations of workers instead. These young workers are more likely to survive the winter than the old workers who die in the wars. Essentially, the colonies recycle their food resources in the form of workers. Old workers die and are eaten to give rise to either reproductive or new workers. Even if a colony “loses” a war and there is a net loss of workers, the warring still provides food, and thus is beneficial to the colony. However, cannibalism is not an efficient food source unless other food resources are scarce, since one new individual requires more food input than another individual’s body can provide.[11]

Larvae predation

Haccou and Hemerik studied the effects of the cinnabar moth larvae (Tyria jacobaeae) distribution on predation by F. polyctena. They found that the ants preyed more on larvae when they were on the ground than on plants. The ants also preyed more often on larvae that were concentrated in clusters over ones that were evenly dispersed. This is most likely due to communication between the ants, where when one worker discovers food such as a group of larvae, she alerts fellow workers.[12]

Nest temperature regulation

F. polyctena nest from Horn-Bad Meinberg, Germany

F. polyctena, among other social insects, has developed strategies to maintain a stable interior nest temperature despite temperature fluctuations outside. Nest moisture, solar radiation, heat produced by the metabolic activities of workers, and microbial activity in the nest material all contribute to nest thermoregulation. A stable temperature is especially crucial to the rate of development of larvae and pupae in the nest.[13] Additionally, it has been suggested that the particular construction of the F. polyctena nests allows them to have excellent heat capacity, despite their low density and low heat capacity materials. Essentially, the outer layer of nests consists of pine needles, sap and buds, that absorbs a large amount of solar radiation. The inner core of the nest consists of mostly twigs that act like a thermal "sponge," which external heat is funneled into.[14]

Dry nests

Nest moisture, solar radiation, heat produced by the metabolic activities of workers, and microbial activity in the nest material all contribute to nest thermoregulation. Dry, exposed F. polyctena nests have higher temperatures during the evening, but lose heat slowly throughout the night. This fluctuation is due to the solar radiation absorbed by the nest and workers during the day. When the workers return in the evening, they have high body temperatures from foraging in the sun that warm the interior of the nest. Dry nests have low external surface temperatures during the night, indicating that the physical nest material effectively retains most of the heat gained during the day. Additionally, because these workers metabolize, they release heat from this process and counteract the heat loss from the nest during the night.[15]

Moist nests

Moist, shaded nests display a different daily temperature pattern than dry nests due to the different conditions. In the evenings, the nest temperature drops and then increases as the night progresses. Solar radiation does not contribute a lot of heat to the nest. Also, the nest material is not an effective insulator like the dry nest material. Moist nests have high external surface temperatures during the night. Instead, they rely on another curious mechanism to warm the nest: microbial activity within the moist nest material. As the workers inside the nest during the evening raise the temperature of the surroundings, microbial activity increases which heats the nest. Indeed, microbial activity is much higher in nest material than in the surrounding forest floor. Microbial activity is not seen in dry nests because the microbes require water. However, despite this adaptation, moist nests on average have lower internal temperatures than dry nests.[16]

Seasonal fluctuation

Formica polyctena nest temperature fluctuates seasonally as well. In the spring, there is a dramatic increase in heat production of the nest material, and then a more gradual decrease in the fall. This corresponds with the activity of the ants throughout the year. It is possible that the ants’ building activities aerate and provide optimum nutritional conditions for microbial activity, increasing the heat production of the nest well beyond what the ants themselves produce.[17]

Notes

  1. ^ Social Insects Specialist Group (1996). "Formica polyctena". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 1996: e.T8644A12924699. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.1996.RLTS.T8644A12924699.en. Retrieved 16 November 2021.
  2. ^ Mabelis, A. A. (1979). "Wood ant wars". Netherlands Journal of Zoology. 29: 451-620.
  3. ^ a b Davies, pg. 363
  4. ^ a b Beye et al., pg. 56
  5. ^ a b F. Dumpert, pg. 67-68
  6. ^ Social Insects Specialist Group 1996
  7. ^ Helantera and Sundstrom, pg. E19-E21
  8. ^ Kruk-De Bruin et al., pg. 468-469
  9. ^ Beye et al., pg. 57
  10. ^ Aubert and Richard, pg. 835-837
  11. ^ Driessen et al., pg. 21
  12. ^ Haccou and Hemerik, pg. 763-764
  13. ^ Frouz, pg. 229
  14. ^ Sudd and Franks, pg. 61
  15. ^ Frouz, pg. 233-234
  16. ^ Frouz, pg. 234-235
  17. ^ Coenen-Stab, et al., pg 243

References

  • Aubert, A., F. J. Richard. “Social Management of the LPS-induced Inflammation in Formica polyctena Ants.” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. Vol. 22 (2008).
  • Beye, M., P. Neumann and R. F. A. Moritz. “Nestmate Recognition and the Genetic Gestalt in the Mound-building Ant Formica polyctena.” Insectes Sociaux. Vol 44. (1997).
  • Coenen-Stass, Dieter, Bernd Schaarschmidt and Ingolf Lamprecht. “Temperature Distribution and Calorimetric Determination of Heat Production in the Nest of the Wood Ant, Formica Polyctena (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).” Ecology, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Apr., 1980).
  • Davies, N. B., Krebs, J. R., & West, S. A. (2012). An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology (4th ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Driessen, Gerard J.J., Andre Th. Van Raalte, and Gerrit J. De Bruyn. “Cannibalism in the Red Wood Ant, Formica polyctena (Hymenoptera: formicidae),” Oecologia. Vol. 63. (1984).
  • Dumpert, K. Trans. C. Johnson. The Social Biology of Ants. Marschfield, Massachusetts: Pitman Publishing Limited, 1978.
  • Frouz, J. “The Effect of Nest Moisture on Daily Temperature Regime in the Nests of Formica polyctena Wood Ants.” Insectes Sociaux. Vol. 47 (2000).
  • Haccou, P. and L. Hemerik. “The Influence of Larval Dispersal in the Cinnabar Moth (Tyria jacobaeae) on Predation by the Red Wood Ant (Formica polyctena): An Analysis Based on the Proportional Hazards Model.”Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Oct., 1985).
  • Helantera, Heikki, and Liselotte Sundström. “Worker Reproduction in Formica Ants.” The American Naturalist, Vol. 170, No. 1 (July 2007).
  • Kruk-De Bruin, Martje, Luc C. M. Rost and Fons G. A. M. Draisma. “Estimates of the Number of Foraging Ants with the Lincoln-Index Method in Relation to the Colony Size of Formica polyctena.”Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Jun., 1977).
  • Sudd, John H., and Nigel R. Franks. (1987). The Behavioral Ecology of Ants. New York: Chapman and Hall.
  • Czechowski, Wojciech; Rutkowski, Tomasz; Stephan, Wojciech; Vepsäläinen, Kari (29 August 2016). "Living beyond the limits of survival: wood ants trapped in a gigantic pitfall". Journal of Hymenoptera Research (51): 227–239. doi:10.3897/jhr.51.9096.

license
cc-by-sa-3.0
copyright
Wikipedia authors and editors
original
visit source
partner site
wikipedia EN

Formica polyctena: Brief Summary

provided by wikipedia EN

Formica polyctena is a species of European red wood ant in the genus Formica and large family Formicidae. The species was first described by Arnold Förster in 1850. The latin species name polyctena is from Greek and literally means 'many cattle', referring to the species' habit of farming aphids for honeydew food. It is found in many European countries. It is a eusocial species, that has a distinct caste system of sterile workers and a very small reproductive caste. The ants have a genetic based cue that allow them to identify which other ants are members of their nest and which are foreign individuals. When facing these types of foreign invaders the F. polyctena has a system to activate an alarm. It can release pheromones which can trigger an alarm response in other nearby ants.

It is found in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine.

license
cc-by-sa-3.0
copyright
Wikipedia authors and editors
original
visit source
partner site
wikipedia EN