Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38913609›Full record

ReviewJournal of insect science (Online)2024

Battles between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a review.

Jackson Champer, Debra Schlenoff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of insect science (Online), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Modeling Control of Invasive Fire Ants by Gene Drive.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  4. Resource-explicit interactions in spatial population models.Methods in ecology and evolution · 2024
    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

2 authors.

Jackson ChamperCenter for Bioinformatics and Center for Life Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3814-3774
Debra SchlenoffDepartment of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA.

Funding

Center for Life SciencesNSFC Overseas Youth FundPeking UniversitySLS-Qidong Innovation Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With their unique colony structure, competition between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) can be particularly intense, with colonies potentially willing to sacrifice large number of individuals to obtain resources or territory under the right circumstances. In this review, we cover circumstances in which ant competition escalates into combat, battle strategies and tactics, and analysis methods for these battles. The trends for when colonies choose to fight can vary greatly dependent on the species and situation, which we review in detail. Because of their large group sizes, ant conflicts can follow different patterns than many other species, with a variety of specialist adaptations and battle strategies, such as specialized worker classes and the need to rapidly recruit large number of compatriots. These same large group sizes also can make ant fighting amenable to mathematical analysis, particularly in the context of Lanchester's laws that consider how total numbers influence the outcome of a confrontation. Yet, dynamic behavior can often disrupt idealized mathematical predictions in real-world scenarios, even though these can still shed light on the explanations for such behavior. We also systematically cover the literature on battles between groups of ants, presenting several other interesting studies on species with unique colony organization, such as army ants and leafcutter ants.

Indexed as

AntsAnimalsBehavior, AnimalCompetitive BehaviorSocial Behavioraggressionantsbattlesstrategies

Identifiers

PMID38913609
PMCPMC11195475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.