請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/33752完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 李玲玲(Ling-Ling Lee) | |
| dc.contributor.author | I-Chun Huang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 黃意鈞 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T05:45:33Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2014-07-29 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2011-07-29 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-07-26 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Anderson, C. and Franks, N. (2001). Teams in animal societies. Behavioral Ecology 12 (5): 534-540.
Ballerini, M., Cabibbo, N., Candelier, R., Cavagna, A., Cisbani, E., Giardina, I., Lecomte, V., Orlandi, A., Parisi, G., Procaccini, A., Viale, M. and Zdravkovic, V. (2008). Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: evidence from a field study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (4): 1232-1237. Bazazi, S., Buhl, J., Hale, J. J., Anstey, M. L., Sword, G. A., Simpson, S. J. and Couzin, I. D. (2008). Collective motion and cannibalism in locust migratory bands. Current Biology 18 (10): 735-739. Biro, D., Sumpter, D. J. T., Meade, J. and Guildford, T. (2006). From compromise to leadership in pigeon homing. Current Biology 16 (21): 2123-2128. Boinski, S. and Campbell, A. F. (1995). Use of trill vocalizations to coordinate troop movement among white-faced capuchins: a second field test. Behaviour 132 (11/12): 875-901. Cerda, X., Angulo, E., Boulay, R. and Lenoir, A. (2009). Individual and collective foraging decisions: a field study of worker recruitment in the gypsy ant Aphaenogaster senilis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63 (4): 551-562. Cogni, R. and Oliveira, P. (2004). Recruitment behavior during foraging in the Neotropical ant Gnamptogenys moelleri (Formicidae: Ponerinae): Does the type of food matter? Journal of Insect Behavior 17 (4): 443-458. Conradt, L. and Roper, T. J. (2003). Group decision-making in animals. Nature 421 (6919): 155-158. Conradt, L. and Roper, T. J. (2005). Consensus decision making in animals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20 (8): 449-456. Czaczkes, T., Nouvellet. P. and Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2011). Cooperative food transport in the Neotropical ant, Pheidole oxyops. Insectes Sociaux 58 (2): 153-161. Dussutour, A., Deneubourg, J.-L., Beshers, S. and Fourcassie, V. (2009). Individual and collective problem-solvng in a foraging context in the leaf-cutting ant Atta colombica. Animal Cognition 12: 21-30. Dyer, J. R. G., Ioannou, C. C., Morrell, L. J., Croft, D. P., Couzin, I. D., Waters, D. A. and Krause, J. (2008). Consensus decision making in human crowds. Animal Behaviour 75 (2): 461-470. Franks, N. R. (1985). Reproduction, foraging efficiency and worker polymorphism in army ants. In: Holldobler, B. and Lindauer, M. (eds) Experimental Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 91–107. Franks, N. R. (1986). Teams in social insects: group retrieval of prey by army ants (Eciton burchelli, Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18 (6): 425-429. Franks, N. R., Sendova-Franks, A. B., Simmons , J. and Mogie, M. (1999). Convergent evolution, superefficient teams and tempo in Old and New World army ants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 266 (1429): 1697-1701. Franks, N. R., Sendova-Franks, A. B. and Anderson, C. (2001). Division of labour within teams of New World and Old World army ants. Animal Behaviour 62 (4): 635-642. Franks, N. R., Mallon, E. B., Bray, H. E., Hamilton, M. J. and Mischler, T. C. (2003). Strategies for choosing between alternatives with different attributes: exemplified by house-hunting ants. Animal Behaviour 65 (1): 215-223. Gerbier, G., Garnier, S., Rieu, C., Theraulaz, G. and Fourcassie V. (2008). Are ants sensitive to the geometry of tunnel bifurcation? Animal Cognition 11: 637-642. Holldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. (1990). The Ants. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Jackson, D. E., Holcombe, M. and Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2004). Trail geometry gives polarity to ant foraging networks. Nature 432: 907-909. John, A., Schadschneider, A., Chowdhury, D. and Nishinar, K. (2009). Trafficlike collective movement of ants on trails: absence of a jammed phase. Physical Review Letters 102 (10): 108001. Kenne, M., Mony, R., Tindo, M., Njaleu, L. C. K., Orivel, J. and Dejean A. (2005). The predatory behaviour of a tramp ant species in its native range. Comptes Rendus Biologies 328: 1025–1030. Krause, J. and Ruxton, G. D. (2002). Living in Groups, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Mallon, E. B., Pratt, S. C. and Franks, N. R. (2001). Individual and collective decision-making during nest site selection by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 50 (4): 352-359. Petit, O. and Bon, R. (2010). Decision-making processes: the case of collective movements. Behavioural Processes 84 (3): 635-647. Pratt, S. C., Mallon, E. B., Sumpter, D. J. T. and Franks, N. R. (2002). Quorum sensing, recruitment, and collective decision-making during colony emigration by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 52 (2): 117-127. Robson, S. K. and Traniello, J. F. A. (1998). Resource assessment, recruitment behavior, and organization of cooperative prey retrieval in the ant Formica schaufussi (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 11 (1): 1-22. Schatz, B., Lachaud, J.-P. and Beugnon, G. (1997). Graded recruitment and hunting strategies linked to prey weight and size in the ponerine ant Ectatomma ruidum. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 40 (6): 337-349. Seeley, T. D. and Buhrman S. C. (1999) Group decision making in swarms of honey bees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45: 19-31. Stewart, K. J. and Harcourt A. H. (1994). Gorillas' vocalizations during rest periods: Signals of impending departure? Behaviour 130 (1/2): 29-40. Sumpter, D. J. T., Krause, J., James, R., Couzin, I. D. and Ward, A. J. W. (2008). Consensus decision making by fish. Current Biology 18 (22): 1773-1777. Tamm, S. (1980) Bird orientation: Single homing pigeons compared with small flocks. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 7: 319-322. Trager, J. C. (1984). A revision of the genus Paratrechina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the continental United States. Sociobiology 9: 49–162. Traniello, J. (1983). Social organization and foraging success in Lasius neoniger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): behavioral and ecological aspects of recruitment communication. Oecologia 59 (1): 94-100. Traniello, J. and Beshers, S. (1991). Maximization of foraging efficiency and resource defense by group retrieval in the ant Formica schaufussi. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29 (4): 283-289. Ward, A. J. W., Ashley J. W., Sumpter, D. J. T., Couzin, I. D., Hart, P. J. B. and Krause, J. (2008). Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (19): 6948-6953. Wetterer, J. (2008) Worldwide spread of the longhorn crazy ant, Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 11: 137-149. Wetterer, J., Miller, S., Wheeler, D., Olson, C., Polhemus, D., Pitts, M., Ashton, I. W., Himler, A. G., Yospin, M., Helms, K. R., Harken, E. L., Gallaher, J., Dunning, D. E., Nelson, M., Litsinger, J., Southern, A. and Burgess, T. (1999). Ecological dominance by Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), an invasive tramp ant, in Biosphere 2. The Florida Entomologist 82 (3): 381-388. Witte, V., Attygalle, A. B. and Meinwail, J. (2007). Complex chemical communication in the crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Chemoecology 17 (1): 57-62. Yamamoto, A., Ishihara, S. and Ito, F. (2009). Fragmentation or transportation: mode of large-prey retrieval in arboreal and ground nesting ants. Journal of Insect Behavior 22 (1): 1-11. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/33752 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 對於表現集體移動的動物而言，在移動方向上達成共識是重要的課題。許多蟻種會表現的合作取回（cooperative retrieval）即是集體移動的一個例子。藉由形成食物取回小組（Food-retrieving group, FRG），螞蟻能夠運回體積太大而無法由單一個體搬運的食塊。然而在搬運過程中，若突然有障礙物在FRG前方出現，FRG將需要達成共識以決定後續行進的方向。此外，若障礙物的其中一側被阻擋而無法通過，FRG更需要能夠選擇沒有被阻擋的一側以通過障礙。本研究以狂蟻(Paratrechina longicornis )為研究對象，探討FRG如何在繞過障礙物的方向上取得共識，並且驗證FRG是否有能力選擇沒有被阻擋的一側來繞過障礙物。本研究同時觀察群體與個體階層的行為表現，並且透過分析、整合兩個階層的結果，釐清FRG取得共識以繞過障礙物的行為機制。結果顯示，在FRG遭遇單一障礙物的50次重複中，FRG成員在其中36次達成共識繞過障礙物。在這36次達成共識的重複中，其中25次有部份成員離開小組，在障礙物附近探索，並且在返回小組後，往先前探索過的一側拉動食塊，進而幫助小組達成共識，選擇該側繞過障礙物。此外，若障礙物的一側無法讓FRG通過，個體會根據其探索的一側是否被阻擋而有不同的行為表現，進而幫助FRG選擇沒有被阻擋的一側繞過障礙物。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Reaching consensus on moving direction is important for gregarious animals performing collective movement. As an example of collective movement, cooperative retrieval is performed by many ant species to cooperatively carry food items too large to be carried by single individuals.
When a food-retrieving group (FRG) encounters a barrier, it is necessary for the group members to reach consensus on moving direction so as to bypass the barrier. In addition, if one of the two sides of the barrier is blocked, it will be better for the FRG to choose the more passable side. This study was set to investigate how FRG members of crazy ants Paratrechina longicornis reach consensus on moving direction, and to verify whether FRGs are able to choose the more passable side to bypass the barrier. To answer these questions, a series of experiments using barrier device were conducted, and data of both individual-level as well as group-level behaviors were integrated to investigate the behavioral mechanism of FRG members to reach consensus on moving direction. The results show that in 36 of 50 cases members of FRG reached consensus when encountering a barrier. In 25 of the 36 cases where consensus was reached, some members would leave FRGs and explore either side of the barrier. After exploration some of these individuals returned to FRGs, leading the group toward the side they had explored by performing tugs. In this way, these individuals assisted the group in bypassing the barrier. Furthermore, when one of the two sides of the barrier was blocked, individuals behaved differently according to whether the side they had explored was blocked, and hence assisted FRGs in choosing the unblocked side. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T05:45:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R97b44004-1.pdf: 3149087 bytes, checksum: f9c576b5caeccdd01a6166286f46085b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents
English abstract………i Chinese abstract………ii Introduction………1 Materials and methods………4 Study animal………4 Basic experimental setup………4 Experiment 1: obstructing FRG with single barrier………5 Experiment 2: obstructing FRG with double barriers………6 Experiment 3: obstructing individual worker with double barriers………7 Data analysis………7 Experiment 1: obstructing FRG with single barrier………7 Experiment 2: obstructing FRG with double barriers………10 Experiment 3: obstructing individual worker with double barriers………10 Results………12 Experiment 1: obstructing FRG with single barrier………12 Experiment 2: obstructing FRG with double barriers………13 Experiment 3: obstructing individual worker with double barriers………15 Discussion………16 References………21 Figures Figure 1: Basic experimental setup………27 Figure 2: Experimental manipulations………28 Figure 3: Frequency distribution of initial group size for FRGs tested in Experiment 1………29 Figure 4: Frequency distribution of initial and final group sizes for FRGs reaching direct consensus and those reaching EI-involving consensus in Experiment 1………30 Figure 5: Duration of decision phase for FRGs reaching direct consensus and those reaching EI-involving consensus in Experiment 1………31 Figure 6: Frequency distribution of number of LIs in FRGs reaching EI-involving consensus in Experiment 1………32 Figure 7: Flow diagram for the behavioral performance of LIs in Experiment 1………33 Figure 8: Frequency distribution of initial group size for FRGs tested in Experiment 2………34 Figure 9: Frequency distribution of initial and final group sizes for FRGs reaching direct consensus and those reaching EI-involving consensus in Experiment 2………35 Figure 10: Duration of decision phase for FRGs reaching direct consensus and those reaching EI-involving consensus in Experiment 1………36 Figure 11: Frequency distribution of number of LIs in FRGs reaching EI-involving consensus in Experiment 2………37 Figure 12: Flow diagram for the behavioral performance of LIs in Experiment 2………38 Figure 13: Flow diagram for the behavioral performance of EIs in Experiment 2………39 Tables Table 1: Logistic regression analysis for the effect of initial group size, weight of cornflakes, and initial average load on reaching consensus in Experiment 1………40 Table 2: Logistic regression analysis for the effect of initial group size, weight of cornflakes, and initial average load on type of consensus in Experiment 1………41 Table 3: Logistic regression analysis for the effect of exploration and average load on tug performance in Experiment 1………42 Table 4: Comparisons of the behavioral performance of EIs and the width of pathways between the chosen and not-chosen side in Experiment 1………43 Table 5: Logistic regression analysis for the effect of initial group size, weight of cornflakes, and initial average load on type of consensus in Experiment 2………44 Table 6: Logistic regression analysis for the effect of return from the blocked side and average load on tug performance………45 Table 7: Comparisons of the behavioral performance of EIs and the width of pathways between the chosen and not-chosen side in Experiment 2………46 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 集體移動 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 食物取回小組 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 合作取食 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 共識 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 狂蟻 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | food-retrieving group | en |
| dc.subject | crazy ant | en |
| dc.subject | cooperative retrieval | en |
| dc.subject | consensus | en |
| dc.subject | collective movement | en |
| dc.title | 狂蟻食物取回小組的共識決策機制 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Consensus Decision-Making in Food-Retrieving Group of Crazy Ant Paratrechina longicornis | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李後晶(How-Jing Lee),林宗岐(Chung-Chi Lin),林曜松(Yao-Sung Lin),趙榮台(Jung-Tai Chao) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 集體移動,共識,合作取食,狂蟻,食物取回小組, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | collective movement,consensus,cooperative retrieval,crazy ant,food-retrieving group, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 46 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2011-07-27 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生命科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 生態學與演化生物學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 生態學與演化生物學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-100-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 3.08 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。