| Title |
Ant workers exhibit specialization and memory during raft formation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Science of Nature, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00114-016-1360-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amaury Avril, Jessica Purcell, Michel Chapuisat |
| Abstract |
By working together, social insects achieve tasks that are beyond the reach of single individuals. A striking example of collective behaviour is self-assembly, a process in which individuals link their bodies together to form structures such as chains, ladders, walls or rafts. To get insight into how individual behavioural variation affects the formation of self-assemblages, we investigated the presence of task specialization and the role of past experience in the construction of ant rafts. We subjected groups of Formica selysi workers to two consecutive floods and monitored the position of individuals in rafts. Workers showed specialization in their positions when rafting, with the same individuals consistently occupying the top, middle, base or side position in the raft. The presence of brood modified workers' position and raft shape. Surprisingly, workers' experience in the first rafting trial with brood influenced their behaviour and raft shape in the subsequent trial without brood. Overall, this study sheds light on the importance of workers' specialization and memory in the formation of self-assemblages. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 6 | 27% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 15 | 68% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 95% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 57% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 235. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#163,899
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#20
of 2,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,943
of 316,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#2
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.