Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26909180›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2016

Exploration adjustment by ant colonies.

Carolina Doran, Martin C Stumpe, Ana Sendova-Franks, Nigel R Franks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carolina DoranSchool of Biological Sciences, Bristol Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK; Champalimaud Neuroscience Programme, Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Avenida Brasília, Lisbon 1400-038, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7814-4675
Martin C StumpeAnTracks Computer Vision Systems , Mountain View, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1402-6749
Ana Sendova-FranksDepartment of Engineering Design and Mathematics, UWE Bristol , Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9300-6986
Nigel R FranksSchool of Biological Sciences, Bristol Life Sciences Building , 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8139-9604

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do animals in groups organize their work? Division of labour, i.e. the process by which individuals within a group choose which tasks to perform, has been extensively studied in social insects. Variability among individuals within a colony seems to underpin both the decision over which tasks to perform and the amount of effort to invest in a task. Studies have focused mainly on discrete tasks, i.e. tasks with a recognizable end. Here, we study the distribution of effort in nest seeking, in the absence of new nest sites. Hence, this task is open-ended and individuals have to decide when to stop searching, even though the task has not been completed. We show that collective search effort declines when colonies inhabit better homes, as a consequence of a reduction in the number of bouts (exploratory events). Furthermore, we show an increase in bout exploration time and a decrease in bout instantaneous speed for colonies inhabiting better homes. The effect of treatment on bout effort is very small; however, we suggest that the organization of work performed within nest searching is achieved both by a process of self-selection of the most hard-working ants and individual effort adjustment.

Indexed as

division of labourexplorationflexibilityTemnothorax albipennis

Identifiers

PMID26909180
PMCPMC4736935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.