Data from Beponis et al. 2014 (Ethology)

Please see the following publication for further details: Beponis, L. M., R. E. O'Dea, V.-A. Ohl, M. P. Ryan, P. R. Y. Backwell, S. A. Binning, and T. M. Haff. 2014. Cleaning up after a meal: the consequences of prey disposal for pit-building antlion larvae. Ethology:doi:10.1111/eth.12257 We studied pit construction by antlion larvae, Myrmeleon acer, and the behaviour of Argentine ants, Linepithema humile, an important prey of M. acer , at the Australian National University Kioloa Coastal Campus, New South Wales, Australia (latitude 35º32’ S longitude 150º22’ E, 10 m elevation) in April 2013.We measured the diameter of pits constructed by antlion larvae in the wild with callipers. We captured and placed each antlion in a separate, labelled container, and measured their head width using dissecting microscopes fitted with granicules. In total, we obtained pit diameter and head size estimates from 133 wild antlions. We tested ant response to dead conspecifics around antlion pits using artificial pits. We set up 80 plastic enclosures (9 cm X 12 cm; diameter X height) filled 6 cm high with sand. An “encounter zone” was lightly etched around each pit using a 4 cm diameter cylinder of cardboard. The experiment consisted of four treatments with 20 replicates of each. Treatment 1: 2-3 day old ant carcasses (‘old carcasses’) were placed around the pits. Treatment 2: < 12 h old ant carcasses (‘fresh carcasses’) were placed around the pits. Treatment 3: ant-sized pieces of Eucalyptus bark (‘bark control’) were placed around the pits. Treatment 4: no objects were around the pits (‘clear pit’). Each treatment replicate had two observers, who were not blind to the treatments. Intra- and inter-observer reliability was high. For treatments 1-3, we placed three of the objects in an equilateral triangular around the edge of the pit, just within the encounter zone to standardize the chance that live ants would encounter the objects when approaching from any direction. For each replicate, we dropped one live ant at the edge of the round container, and recorded the ant’s behaviour with a stopwatch for 3 min. We recorded: a) the time (s) taken for the ant to first enter the encounter zone; b) the number of times the ant entered the encounter zone; c) the total time (s) the ant spent in the encounter zone; d) the time (s) taken to first fall into the pit; and e) the total number of times each ant fell into the pit. For treatments 1-3 (ants and bark) we also recorded f) the number of interactions the ant had with the objects placed around the pit, defined as the ant directly bumping into or stopping to inspect an object.如需进一步详情，请参阅以下文献：Beponis L. M.、O'Dea R. E.、Ohl V.-A.、Ryan M. P.、Backwell P. R. Y.、Binning S. A. 及 Haff T. M.，2014年。《餐后清理：猎物处理对造坑蚁狮幼虫的影响》，《动物行为学》，DOI:10.1111/eth.12257。本研究于2013年4月在澳大利亚新南威尔士州澳大利亚国立大学基奥洛阿海岸校区（南纬35°32′，东经150°22′，海拔10米）开展，研究对象为蚁狮幼虫（Myrmeleon acer）的造坑行为，以及其重要猎物阿根廷蚁（Linepithema humile）的行为模式。本研究使用游标卡尺测量野外蚁狮幼虫所造坑穴的直径；将捕获的每头蚁狮单独置于带标签的容器中，并使用配备测微尺的解剖显微镜测量其头宽。最终共获取133头野生蚁狮的坑穴直径与头宽测量数据。本研究通过人工坑穴开展实验，以探究阿根廷蚁对蚁狮坑穴周边同种死虫的行为响应。共搭建80个塑料饲养盒（9cm×12cm，直径×高度），盒内装入6cm厚的细沙；以直径4cm的硬纸板圆筒为模板，在每个坑穴周边轻刻出“相遇区域”。本实验共设置4组处理，每组设置20次重复：处理1：将放置2~3天的蚁尸（“陈旧尸块”）置于坑穴周边；处理2：将放置不足12小时的蚁尸（“新鲜尸块”）置于坑穴周边；处理3：将与蚁体型相当的桉树（Eucalyptus）树皮碎屑（“树皮对照组”）置于坑穴周边；处理4：坑穴周边不放置任何物体（“空白对照组”）。每组重复实验均由两名知晓实验分组的观察者开展，观察者内部及观察者间的信度均较高。针对处理1~3组，我们将3个实验物体以等边三角形的形式放置于坑穴边缘，且恰好位于相遇区域内，以统一活蚁从任意方向接近时与物体相遇的概率。每组重复实验中，我们在塑料盒边缘投放1头活蚁，并用秒表记录其3分钟内的行为。记录指标包括：a) 蚁首次进入相遇区域的耗时（秒）；b) 蚁进入相遇区域的次数；c) 蚁在相遇区域内的总停留时长（秒）；d) 蚁首次掉入坑穴的耗时（秒）；e) 每头蚁掉入坑穴的总次数。针对处理1~3组（蚁尸与树皮碎屑组），我们还额外记录了f) 蚁与坑穴周边实验物体的互动次数，定义为蚁直接碰撞物体或停下对物体进行探查的行为。