IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v15y2004i1p63-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The relative availabilities of complementary resources affect the feeding preferences of ant colonies

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Kay

Abstract

Theory predicts that consumers selecting among complementary resources will show stronger preferences for items that become relatively less available. I tested this hypothesis in a field study that compared the preferences of ant colonies given simultaneous access to experimental foods differing in carbohydrate and protein content. In the first part of the study, I examined the effect of nutrient supplementation on colony-level preference in the ant Dorymyrmex smithi. Colonies that had received a protein solution for 24 h consumed proportionally more carbohydrates than control colonies that had been given access to water, suggesting that colonies preferred nutrients when they became relatively rare. In the second part of the study, I compared colony-level preference among eight species of ants that differ in their relative access to carbohydrates and protein in the field. I found that species with relatively easy access to carbohydrates preferred protein, whereas species with greater access to protein preferred carbohydrates. These results suggest that the benefits of a nutritionally mixed diet coupled with differences in the relative availability of nutrients may explain variation in feeding decisions both within and among ant species. Copyright 2004.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Kay, 2004. "The relative availabilities of complementary resources affect the feeding preferences of ant colonies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(1), pages 63-70, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:1:p:63-70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arg106
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:1:p:63-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.