A simple mechanism for collective decision-making in the absence of payoff information.

Animals are often faced with time-critical decisions without prior information about their actions' outcomes. In such scenarios, individuals budget their investment into the task to cut their losses in case of an adverse outcome. In animal groups, this may be challenging because group members can only access local information, and consensus can only be achieved through distributed interactions among individuals. Here, we combined experimental analyses with theoretical modeling to investigate how groups modulate their investment into tasks in uncertain conditions. Workers of the arboreal weaver ant Oecophylla smaragdina form three-dimensional chains using their own bodies to bridge vertical gaps between existing trails and new areas to explore. The cost of a chain increases with its length because ants participating in the structure are prevented from performing other tasks. The payoffs of chain formation, however, remain unknown to the ants until the chain is complete and they can explore the new area. We demonstrate that weaver ants cap their investment into chains, and do not form complete chains when the gap is taller than 90 mm. We show that individual ants budget the time they spend in chains depending on their distance to the ground, and propose a distance-based model of chain formation that explains the emergence of this tradeoff without the need to invoke complex cognition. Our study provides insights into the proximate mechanisms that lead individuals to engage (or not) in collective actions and furthers our knowledge of how decentralized groups make adaptive decisions in uncertain conditions.

Leaderless consensus decision-making determines cooperative transport direction in weaver ants.

Animal groups need to achieve and maintain consensus to minimize conflict among individuals and prevent group fragmentation. An excellent example of a consensus challenge is cooperative transport, where multiple individuals cooperate to move a large item together. This behaviour, regularly displayed by ants and humans only, requires individuals to agree on which direction to move in. Unlike humans, ants cannot use verbal communication but most likely rely on private information and/or mechanical forces sensed through the carried item to coordinate their behaviour. Here, we investigated how groups of weaver ants achieve consensus during cooperative transport using a tethered-object protocol, where ants had to transport a prey item that was tethered in place with a thin string. This protocol allows the decoupling of the movement of informed ants from that of uninformed individuals. We showed that weaver ants pool together the opinions of all group members to increase their navigational accuracy. We confirmed this result using a symmetry-breaking task, in which we challenged ants with navigating an open-ended corridor. Weaver ants are the first reported ant species to use a 'wisdom-of-the-crowd' strategy for cooperative transport, demonstrating that consensus mechanisms may differ according to the ecology of each species.

Nectar non-protein amino acids (NPAAs) do not change nectar palatability but enhance learning and memory in honey bees.

Floral nectar is a pivotal element of the intimate relationship between plants and pollinators. Nectars are composed of a plethora of nutritionally valuable compounds but also hundreds of secondary metabolites (SMs) whose function remains elusive. Here we performed a set of behavioural experiments to study whether five ubiquitous nectar non-protein amino acids (NPAAs: ß-alanine, GABA, citrulline, ornithine and taurine) interact with gustation, feeding preference, and learning and memory in Apis mellifera. We showed that foragers were unable to discriminate NPAAs from water when only accessing antennal chemo-tactile information and that freely moving bees did not exhibit innate feeding preferences for NPAAs. Also, NPAAs did not alter food consumption or longevity in caged bees over 10 days. Taken together our data suggest that natural concentrations of NPAAs did not alter nectar palatability to bees. Olfactory conditioning assays showed that honey bees were more likely to learn a scent when it signalled a sucrose reward containing either ß-alanine or GABA, and that GABA enhanced specific memory retention. Conversely, when ingested two hours prior to conditioning, GABA, ß-alanine, and taurine weakened bees' acquisition performances but not specific memory retention, which was enhanced in the case of ß-alanine and taurine. Neither citrulline nor ornithine affected learning and memory. NPAAs in nectars may represent a cooperative strategy adopted by plants to attract beneficial pollinators.

Exposure to a biopesticide interferes with sucrose responsiveness and learning in honey bees.

The entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana is a widely used biopesticide that is considered as an effective alternative to classical agrochemicals. B. bassiana is thought to be safe for pollinators although little is known about its side-effects on pollinators' behaviour and cognition. Here, we focused on honey bees and used the proboscis extension response (PER) protocol to assess whether B. bassiana affects individual sucrose responsiveness, non-associative and associative olfactory learning and memory. Fungus-treated bees displayed an enhanced sucrose responsiveness, which could not be explained by metabolic alterations. Strikingly, exposed bees were twice as inconsistent as controls in response to sucrose, showing PER to lower but not to higher sucrose concentrations. Exposed bees habituated less to sucrose and had a better acquisition performance in the conditioning phase than controls. Further, neither mid- nor long-term memory were affected by the fungus. As sucrose responsiveness is the main determinant of division of foraging labour, these changes might unsettle the numerical ratio between the sub-castes of foragers leading to suboptimal foraging. Although the use of biocontrol strategies should be preferred over chemical pesticides, careful assessment of their side-effects is crucial before claiming that they are safe for pollinators.