Object use in insects

Insects are the most diverse group of organisms in the animal kingdom, and some species exhibit complex social behaviors. Although research on insect object use is still in its early stages, insects have already been shown to display rich object-use behaviors. This review focuses on patterns and behavioral flexibility in insect object-use behavior, and the role of cultural evolution in the development of object-use behaviors. Object use in insects is not widespread but has been documented in a diverse set of taxa. Some insects can use objects flexibly and display various object-use patterns. Like mammals and birds, insects use objects in diverse activities, including foraging, predator defense, courtship, and play. Intelligence, pre-existing manipulative behaviors, and anatomical structure affect innovations in object use. In addition, learning and imitation are the main mechanisms underlying the spread of object-use behaviors within populations. Given that insects are one of the major animal groups engaging in object use, studies of insect object use could provide general insights into object use in the animal kingdom.

Paving Behavior in Ants and Its Potential Application in Monitoring Two Urban Pest Ants, Solenopsis invicta and Tapinoma melanocephalum

Our previous study discovered that two urban pest ants, red imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta Buren (Formicidae: Myrmicinae), and ghost ants, Tapinoma melanocephalum (Fabricius) (Formicidae: Dolichoderinae), can pave viscose surfaces with particles to facilitate food search and transport. We hypothesize that this paving behavior can be applied to monitor S. invicta and T. melanocephalum. In the present study, 3998 adhesive tapes, each with a food source (sausage), were placed in 20 locations around Guangzhou, China (181-224 tapes per location), and their efficiency to detect S. invicta and T. melanocephalum was compared with two traditional ant-monitoring methods, baiting and pitfall trapping. Overall, S. invicta was detected by 45.6% and 46.4% of baits and adhesive tapes, respectively. In each location, the percentage of adhesive tapes detecting S. invicta and T. melanocephalum was similar when compared to baits and pitfall traps. However, significantly more non-target ant species showed up on bait and pitfall traps. Seven non-target ant species-Pheidole parva Mayr (Formicidae: Myrmicinae), Pheidole nodus Smith (Formicidae: Myrmicinae), Pheidole sinica Wu & Wang (Formicidae: Myrmicinae), Pheidole yeensis Forel (Formicidae: Myrmicinae), Carebara affinis (Jerdon) (Formicidae: Myrmicinae), Camponotus nicobarensis Mayr (Formicidae: Formicinae), and Odontoponera transversa (Smith) (Formicidae: Ponerinae)-also showed tape paving behavior, but they can be easily distinguished morphologically from S. invicta and T. melanocephalum. Our study showed that the paving behavior occurs in different subfamilies of ants (i.e., myrmicinae, dolichoderinae, formicinae, and ponerinae). In addition, paving behavior can potentially be used to develop more specific monitoring methods for S. invicta and T. melanocephalum in urban areas in southern China.

Surfactant affects the tool use behavior of foraging ants

Surfactants are commonly used in detergents, soaps and agrichemical products. After use, the residual surfactants can be dispersed into environmental compartments, directly or indirectly affecting aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Ants are one of the few insects that are able to make and use tools when foraging for liquid food. However, this unique behavior of ants may be greatly affected by environmental pollutants. Here, we hypothesized that surfactants have adversarial impacts on ant foraging behavior, and tested this hypothesis by investigating the effect of TWEEN 80 (a common nonionic surfactant) on the tool use behavior of black imported fire ants (Solenopsis richteri) when foraging for liquid food (sugar water). Natural pine needles and man-made sponges were provided as tools for ants. The results revealed increasing surfactant concentration induced ants to deposit more tools and caused a higher drowning rate of ants. S. richteri tended to deposit more pine needles and tools of smaller size when exposed to surfactant. Interactions between tool type and surfactant concentration showed significant effects on tool deposition and drowning rate of ants. Addition of surfactant into sugar water increased the drowning rate and reduced the foraging activity and food collection of ant workers, suggesting that surfactant in liquid food can affect the foraging efficiency of ants. However, availability of tools reduced drowning rate and increased sugar water collected compared to without tools. Our results demonstrated that ants can adjust their tool use strategies to manage the foraging risk caused by environmental surfactant, such as increasing the amount and selecting appropriate size of the tools and assembling tools of different structures. Therefore, long-term exposure to surfactants may alter foraging behavior of ants and contribute to evolve new foraging strategy.

Red imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) cover inaccessible surfaces with particles to facilitate food search and transportation

Eusocial insects have evolved diverse particle-use behaviors. A previous study reported that red imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta Buren, deposited soil particles on substances treated with essential balm, a fire ant repellent. We hypothesized that S. invicta modifies inaccessible surfaces by covering them with soil particles to facilitate food search and transportation. Here, laboratory experiments were conducted to study the particle-covering behavior of S. invicta in response to viscose surfaces or surfaces treated with essential balm or liquid paraffin in the presence of real food (sausage) or non-food objects (acrylic plates). S. invicta workers deposited significantly more soil particles on these three types of treated surfaces than on untreated surfaces. In addition, significantly more particles were relocated on viscose and paraffin-smeared surfaces in the presence of food than in the presence of non-food objects. The particle-covering behavior on viscose surfaces was also observed in the field. Interestingly, when no soil particles were available, ants searched and transported food on viscose surfaces only if the surfaces were artificially covered with sufficient quantities of soil particles but could not do so on viscose surfaces without soil particles or with insufficient quantities of soil particles. In addition, ants actively relocated particles to cover viscose surfaces if the transportation distance was within 200 mm, whereas significantly fewer particles were relocated at longer transportation distances (400 mm). Our study provides a novel example of particle use by fire ants during foraging.

When and Why Did Human Brains Decrease in Size? A New Change-Point Analysis and Insights From Brain Evolution in Ants

Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.

Extending the Reach of Tooling Theory: A Neurocognitive and Phylogenetic Perspective

Tool use research has suffered from a lack of consistent theoretical frameworks. There is a plethora of tool use definitions and the most widespread ones are so inclusive that the behaviors that fall under them arguably do not have much in common. The situation is aggravated by the prevalence of anecdotes, which have played an undue role in the literature. In order to provide a more rigorous foundation for research and to advance our understanding of the interrelation between tool use and cognition, we suggest the adoption of Fragaszy and Mangalam's (2018) tooling framework, which is characterized by the creation of a body-plus-object system that manages a mechanical interface between tool and surface. Tooling is limited to a narrower suite of behaviors than tool use, which might facilitate its neurocognitive investigation. Indeed, evidence in the literature indicates that tooling has distinct neurocognitive underpinnings not shared by other activities typically classified as tool use, at least in primates. In order to understand the extent of tooling incidences in previous research, we systematically surveyed the comprehensive tool use catalog by Shumaker et al. (2011). We identified 201 tool use submodes, of which only 81 could be classified as tooling, and the majority of the tool use examples across species were poorly supported by evidence. Furthermore, tooling appears to be phylogenetically less widespread than tool use, with the greatest variability found in the primate order. However, in order to confirm these findings and to understand the evolution and neurocognitive mechanisms of tooling, more systematic research will be required in the future, particularly with currently underrepresented taxa.