Nests

Ants are one of the few groups of animals which modify their immediate environment to suit their needs. They build often elaborate nests in a range of situations, sometimes expending huge amounts of energy in their construction. These nests are commonly occupied for years and some for decades. In addition, some ants use plant fibres or soil to construct protective coverings over nests and feeding areas. Only a handful of animals manufacture such elaborate and complex structures.

Section of Lasius sp. nest from Nova Scotia, Canada. Photo by Sean McCann.
Lasius sp. Note the stratification of brood, with pupae near the top and larvae in the lower sections. Nova Scotia, Canada. Photo by Sean McCann.
Lasius sp. workers with pupae. Nova Scotia, Canada. Photo by Sean McCann.
Lasius sp. workers with larvae. Nova Scotia, Canada. Photo by Sean McCann.

Nests in soil vary from small, simple chambers under rocks, logs or other objects on the ground to extensive excavations extending a meter or more into the soil. The exact structure of the nest varies with the species, soil type and situation. The entrances to these subterranean nests show a wide range of styles. Many are no more than a cryptic hole just large enough for a single worker to squeeze through. Others are a single entrance surrounded by soil which varies from a low and broad mound to a tall, narrow turret. A number of species assemble soil and leaves around their nest entrances to form large piles with well-defined, vertical sides and concave tops. Others collect plant material to construct thatched mounds above their subterranean nests.

A nest of the sugar ant, Camponotus consobrinus, often have a simple entrance surrounded by a low mound of loose dirt. Several queens are just leaving this nest to mate and establish nests of their own.
Only a handful of Australian ants use thatch when constructing their nests, including this Iridomyrmex species.
Most ants nest in soil with a low mound of loose dirt at the entrance, such as this Myrmecia species.
Some species disperse soil removed during nest construction, leaving little indication of the entrance other than a small hole, as in this Iridomyrmex discors nest.

For additional illustrations of nest architecture, see Apterostigma collare, Harpegnathos venator, Harpegnathos saltator, Malagidris sofina, Myrmecia brevinoda, Pheidole sykesii, Polyrhachis laboriosa.

The nests of the common meat ant of south-eastern Australia (Iridomyrmex purpureus) can grow to enormous sizes with tens of thousands of workers. They clear all vegetation from the surfaces of their nests and cover them with small stones. A single colony can be composed of numerous individual nests separated by up to several hundred metres. Individual nests can have 10 or more separate, small entrances just large enough for individual workers to move through.

A large nest of I. purpureus. Nests can contain up to several hundred thousand workers.
A well-worn highway connects two nests within a colony of I. purpureus.

Some species of ants nest arboreally. Their nests are most frequently found in twigs, branches or the trunks of trees. Australian species are not known to attack firm wood, most utilising the burrows of other insects such as beetle larvae, or entering rotten wood or wound sites caused by wind or insect damage. In most cases the entrances to these types of nests are either small and circular or are formed by the natural contours of the tree or branch.

An arboreal nesting Crematogaster species, including the large queen and much smaller worker.
In twig-nesting species the chambers are often little larger than the workers themselves.
Nest entrances in many arboreal species are only slightly larger than individual workers.
An elongate twig ant, Pseudomyrmex simplex, with larvae in her twig nest. Brazil. Photo by Alex Wild.

In a few arboreal species nests are constructed using leaves. For example, the green tree ant (Oecophylla smaragdina) stitches together individual leaves with silk produced by their larvae. The colony expands both by enlarging existing leaf nests and by adding new satellite nests. In other arboreal species, plant fibres are used to construct coverings which are attached to the surfaces of leaves. The ants live within the chamber formed by the covering and leaves.

The Green Tree Ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, forms nests by stitching leaves together using silk produced by their larvae. Normally the exterior of the nest is quite, but in this case the nest has been disturbed and workers have pored forth to determine the nature of the intruder.
Oecophylla smaragdina workers constructing leaf nest, Saunders Beach, Queensland. Photo by Jordan Dean.
Polyrhachis dives nesting in low shrub. Photo by Simon Robson.
Intact Dolichoderus bidens nest on the under surface of a Parinari leontopitheci leaf, Bahia, Brazil. Photo by Alex Popovkin.
Dolichoderus bidens leaf nest with its carton covering removed. Photo by Alex Popovkin.

Jitjak & Sanoamuang (2019) describe a symbiotic relationship between the fungus Mycodomus formicartus and Dolichoderus thoracicus in Thailand. The fruiting body of the fungus forms a cavity structure containing debris. They found these cavities function as nest sites for the ants. Even in mature fungal samples, which are naturally degraded with exposed carton-like structure, ants were still observed nearby. D. thoracicus is an indigenous species widely populated throughout South East Asian region including Thailand, and are capable of forming nests in a variety of substrates such as soil, leaves and plant cavities, and secrete sticky honeydew like other insects. The ants utilize the fungal fruiting body as nests, the hard and tough structure of the fungus protecting the ants from an otherwise harsh environment. Furthermore, the ants secrete feces or honeydew which could benefit the fungus’ growth and development.

Fruiting bodies of Mycodomus formicartus. (A-B): Black and gray fugal bodies found on bamboo with superficial pores, (C): Degraded fruiting body revealing internal cavity, (D): Surface of fruiting body, (E): Fruiting body dissected in half, (F): A perithecium with periphyses, (G): A row of perithecia submerged underneath the fruiting-body surface, (H): Black ants, Dolichoderus thoracicus associated with fungal bodies, (I): Part-ascospores, (J): Asci containing ascospores, K: Young ascospore. Scale bars (A-C) = 1 cm, (D) = 1 mm, (E) = 1 cm, (F) = 20 μm, (G) = 1 mm, (H) = 1 mm, (I) = 1 μm, (J) = 10 μm, (K) = 1 μm. (Jitjak & Sanoamuang, 2019)

While many ants form elaborate nests, those of other species are relatively simple. Many of the species found in rotten wood do little more than remove loose wood fibres to construct simple chambers for workers and brood. These chambers can be small or very extensive but often lack the complexities of nests found in soil or arboreally. Finally, a handful of species (for example some Leptogenys) lack what would normally be thought of as a nest and are found in small groups clustered on the ground in leaf litter or among the roots of plants. These species move their "nests" frequently and can be found in a wide range of suitable sites.

References

Brian, M.V. 1956. Group form and causes of working inefficiency in the ant Myrmica rubra. Physiological Zoology 29: 173-194.
Buhl, J., Gautrais, J., Deneubourg, J., Kuntz, P., Theraulaz, G. 2006. The growth and form of tunnelling networks in ants. Journal of Theoretical Biology 243: 287-298.
Cox, M.D., Blanchard, G.B. 2000. Gaseous templates in ant nests. Journal of Theoretical Biology 204: 223-238.
Fernández-Marín, H., Zimmerman, J.K., Wcislo, W.T., Rehner, S.A. 2005. Colony foundation, nest architecture and demography of a basal fungus-growing ant, Mycocepurus smithii (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Journal of Natural History 39: 1735-1743.
Forti, L.C., Camargo, R.S., Fujihara, R.T., Lopes, J.F.S. 2007. The nest architecture of the ant, Pheidole oxyops Forel, 1908 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Science 14:437-442.
Halley, J.D., Burd, M., Wells, P. 2005. Excavation and architecture of Argentine ant nests. Insectes Sociaux 52: 350-356.
Hasiotis, S.T. 2003. Complex ichnofossils of solitary and social soil organisms: understanding their evolution and roles in terrestrial paleoecosystems. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 192: 259-320.
Jitjak, W., Sanoamuang, N. 2019. A novel fungus, Mycodomus formicartus associated with black ant, Dolichoderus thoracicus (Smith) on bamboo. Asia-Pacific Journal of Science and Technology 24: 1-15 (doi:10.14456/apst.2019.21).
Jonkman, J.C.M. 1980a. The external and internal structure and growth of nests of the leaf-cutting ant Atta vollenweideri Forel, 1893 (Hym.: Formicidae). Part I. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 89: 158-173.
Jonkman, J.C.M. 1980b. The external and internal structure and growth of nests of the leaf-cutting ant Atta vollenweideri Forel, 1893 (Hym.: Formicidae). Part II. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 89: 158-173.
Klingenberg, C., Brandão, C.R.F., Engels, W. 2006. Primitive nest architecture and small monogynous colonies in basal Attini inhabiting sandy beaches of southern Brazil. Studies in Neotropical Fauna and Environment 42: 121-126.
Mikheyev, A.S., Tschinkel, W.R. 2004. Nest architecture of the ant Formica pallidefulva: Structure, costs and rules of excavation. Insectes Sociaux 41: 30-36.
Moreira, A.A., Forti, L.C., Andrade, A.P.P., Boaretto, M.A., Lopes, J. 2004. Nest architecture of Atta laevigata (F. Smith, 1858) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 39: 109-116.
Moreira, A.A., Forti, L.C., Boaretto, M.A.C., Andrade, A.P.P., Lopes, J.F.S., Ramos, V.M. 2004b. External and internal structure of Atta bisphaerica Forel (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) nests. Journal of Applied Entomology 128: 204-211.
Moreira, A.A., Vitorio, A.C., Forti, L.C. 1995. Arquitetura da colonia de sauva de Atta laevigata (Hym., Formicidae) [abstract]. In: XII Encontro de Mirmecologia, Sao Leopoldo, p. 67. RS, Brazil.
Mueller, U.G., Wcislo, W.T. 1998. Nesting biology of the fungus-growing ant Cyphomyrmex longiscapus Weber (Attini, Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux 45: 181-189.
Plaza, J., Tinaut, A. 1989. Descripción de los hormigueros de Cataglyphis rosenhaueri (Emery, 1906) y Cataglyphis iberica (Emery, 1906) en diferentes biotopos de la provincia de Granada (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Boletín de la Asociación Española de Entomologia 13: 109-116.
Rasse, P., Deneubourg, J.L. 2001. Dynamics of nest excavation and nest size regulation of Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 14: 433-449.
Ruano, F., Tinaut, A. 1993. Estructura del nido de Cataglyphis floricola Tinaut, 1993. Estudio comparado con los hormigueros de C. iberica (Emery, 1906) y C. rosenhaueri (Emery, 1906) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Boletín de la Asociación Española de Entomologia 17: 179-189.
Sendova Franks, A.B., Franks, N.R. 1995. Spatial relationships within nests of the ant Leptothorax unifasciatus (Latr.) and their implications for the division of labour. Animal Behaviour 50: 121-136.
Solomon, S.E., Mueller, U.G., Schultz, T.R., Currie, C.R., Price, S.L., Oliveira da Silva-Pinhati, A.C., Bacci, Jr M., Vasconcelos, H.L. 2004. Nesting biology of the fungus growing ants Mycetarotes Emery (Attini, Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux 51: 333-338.
Tschinkel, W.R. 1987. Seasonal life history and nest architecture of a winter-active ant, Prenolepis imparis. Insectes Sociaux 34: 143-164.
Tschinkel, W.R. 1999. Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius: Distribution of workers, brood and seeds within the nest in relation to colony size and season. Ecological Entomology 24: 222-237.
Tschinkel, W.R. 2003. Subterranean ant nests: trace fossils past and future? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 192, 321-333 (doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(02)00690-9).
Tschinkel, W.R. 2004a. Ant nest architecture. In: Bekoff, M., editor. Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Greenwood Press.
Tschinkel, W.R. 2004b. The nest architecture of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. Journal of Insect Science 4: 21.
Tschinkel, W.R. 2005. The nest architecture of the ant, Camponotus socius. Journal of Insect Science 5:9.
Tschinkel, W.R. 2010. Methods for casting subterranean ant nests. Journal of Insect Science, in press.
Verza, S.S., Forti, L.C., Lopes, J.F.S., Hughes, W.O.H. 2007. Nest architecture of the leafcutting ant Acromyrmex rugosus rugosus. Insectes Sociaux 54: 303-309.

References Relating to Nest Architecture

Branstetter, M.G., Danforth, B.N., Pitts, J.P., Gates, M.W., Kula, R.R., Brady, S.B. 2017. Phylogenomic insights into the evolution of stinging wasps and the origins of ants and bees. Current Biology 27: 1019–1025.
Cassill, D. L., Tschinkel, W.R. 1995. Allocation of liquid food to larvae via trophallaxis in colonies of the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Animal Behaviour 50' (3): 801–813.
Cerquera, L. M., Tschinkel, W.R. 2010. The nest architecture of the ant Odontomachus brunneus. Journal of Insect Science 10: 64.
Conway, J.R. 2003. Architecture, population size, myrmecophiles, and mites in an excavated nest of the honey pot ant, Myrmecocystus mendex Wheeler, in Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 48: 449–450.
Cushing, P.E. 1995. Description of the spider Masoncus pogonophilus (Araneae, Linyphiidae), a harvester ant myrmecophile. Journal of Arachnology 23(1): 55–59.
Debruyn, L.A.L., Conacher, A.J. 1994. The bioturbation activity of ants in agricultural and naturally vegetated habitats in semiarid environments. Australian Journal of Soil Research 32: 555–70.
Diehl-Fleig, E., Diehl, E. 2007. Nest architecture and colony size of the fungus-growing ant Mycetophylax simplex Emery, 1888 (Formicidae, Attini). Insectes Sociaux 54 (3): 242–247.
Dlussky, G.M. 1981. Ants of Deserts. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).
Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher 35: 125–129.
Duarte, A., Weissing, F.J., Pen, I., Keller, L. 2011. An evolutionary perspective on self-organized division of labor in social insects. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 42: 91–110.
Halfen, A.F., Hasiotis, S.T. 2010. Neoichnological study of the traces and burrowing behaviors of the western harvester ant Pogonomyrmex occidentalis (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Paleopedogenic and paleoecological implications. Palaios 25: 703–720.
Hamilton, W.D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I. and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–52.
Harrison,J.S., Gentry, J.B. 1981. Foraging pattern, colony distribution, and foraging range of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. Ecology 62(6): 1467–1473.
Hart, L.M., Tschinkel, W.R. 2012. A seasonal natural history of the ant, Odontomachus brunneus. Insectes Sociaux 59(1): 45–54.
Hunt, J.H., Nalepa, C.A. (eds.) 1994. Nourishment, evolution and insect sociality. In Nourishment and Evolution in Insect Societies, 1–19. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Jacoby, M. 1935. Erforschung der Struktur des Atta-Nestes mit Hilfe des Cementausguss-Verfahrens. Revista Entomologia 5: 420–424.
Johnson, B. R., Linksvayer, T.A. 2010. Deconstructing the superorganism: Social physiology, groundplans, and sociogenomics. Quarterly Review of Biology 85(1): 57–79.
Kondoh, M. 1968. Bioeconomic studies on the colony of an ant species, Formica japonica Motschulsky. 1. Nest structure and seasonal change of the colony members. Japanese Journal of Ecology 18: 124–133.