Timothy A. Linksvayer, Andrew C. McCall, Rebecca M. Jensen, Cynthia M. Marshall, Joshua W. Miner, Mark J. McKone
BIOTROPICA 34 (1), 93-100, (1 March 2002) https://doi.org/10.1646/0006-3606(2002)034[0093:TFOHBI]2.0.CO;2
KEYWORDS: Atta cephalotes, Costa Rica, herbivory, hitchhiking behavior, leaf-cutting ants, parasitoid defense, phorid flies, Tropical rain forest
In some leaf-cutting ant species, minim workers ride on the fragments of leaves as they are carried back to the nest from the cutting site. There is convincing evidence that these “hitchhikers” can protect the leaf carriers from attack by phorid (Diptera: Phoridae) parasitoids, but we consider the possibility of other functions for the hitchhiking behavior. It has been hypothesized that the hitchhikers (1) feed on leaf sap from the edges of the cut leaves; (2) ride back to the nest to save energy; (3) get caught on the fragments as they are cut, and hitchhike because they cannot (or will not) get off; and (4) begin the process of preparing the leaf to enter the fungal gardens in the nest, perhaps by removing microbial contaminants. We observed hitchhikers of Atta cephalotes in 14 nests at the La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica. There was no difference in the proportion of leaf carriers with hitchhikers between day and night. Because the nests we observed were largely nocturnal, more than 90 percent of the hitchhiking occurred at night. The phorid parasitoids are usually considered to be diurnal, so the preponderance of nocturnal hitchhiking suggests other functions in addition to parasitoid defense. Hitchhikers spent more time in the defensive head-up posture during the day, but spent more time in the head-down posture at night. The head-down posture may indicate cleaning or other leaf preparation. The hitchhikers were never observed feeding on sap. Hitchhikers frequently got onto and off of the fragments, and so they were not “marooned.” Few hitchhikers rode all the way back to the nest and were often moving on the leaf fragment; these observations make the energy conservation hypothesis less likely, although we cannot reject it. We conclude that parasitoid defense is an important function of hitchhiking but also that there are probably other functions when parasitoids are absent. Based on available data, the most likely possibility is preparation of the leaf fragment before it enters the nest.