Tool use is a widespread phenomenon within the animal kingdom (Shumaker et al., 2011; Sanz et al., 2013) and new examples of animal tool use are regularly discovered, such as recently in pigs (Root-Bernstein et al., 2019) and seabirds (Fayet et al., 2020). Tool use is defined as "the external employment of an unattached or manipulable attached environmental object to alter more efficiently the form, position, or condition of another object, another organism, or the user itself, when the user holds and directly manipulates the tool during or prior to use and is responsible for the proper and effective orientation of the tool" (Shumaker et al., 2011, p. 5). Most of the reports concern vertebrates, particularly primates and birds, which can manufacture tools to solve specific tasks (Hunt and Gray, 2002; Sanz et al., 2013; Auersperg et al., 2014), use multiple tools sequentially (Martin-Ordas et al., 2012), and choose effective tools based on their functional properties (Visalberghi et al., 2009). We know that capuchin monkeys have been using stone tools to process food for at least 3000 years (Falótico et al., 2019) but presumably the use of tools appeared even earlier in invertebrates. Smith and Bentley-Condit, 2010 reported about 50 cases of tool use in insects, encompassing 30 different genera. Among the best described examples is the use of debris to transport liquid food by some species of ants (Morrill, 1972; Barber et al., 1989), in particular, several species of the genus Aphaenogaster (Fellers and Fellers, 1976; Tanaka and Ono, 1978; McDonald, 1984; Agbogba, 1985). Workers of these species are characterised by the lack of a distensible crop and by a chitinous gaster, preventing the transportation of large amounts of liquid food inside their bodies, a feature common in many other ant species (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990; Davidson et al., 2004). Moreover, unlike most ant species, Aphaenogaster workers do not perform mouth-to-mouth exchange of liquid food (i.e. trophallaxis, Delage and Jaisson, 1969); therefore, foragers cannot use this form of food transmission among colony members. Workers forage individually mostly on the ground level and can cover large areas in habitats with scarce food sources (Cerdá et al., 1998). When Aphaenogaster foragers discover a source of liquid food, such as fruit pulp or body fluids of dead insects, they collect debris (pieces of leaves, soil, sand grains), drop them into the liquid food, and then transport these soaked debris to their nest. This behaviour qualifies as tool use, namely tool-assisted food transport. Indeed, these ants do not drop debris in non-food substances (Banschbach et al., 2006).

In a previous study (Maák et al., 2017), we have investigated whether Aphaenogaster ants are selective in the choice of material to be used as tools and we demonstrated that ant workers prefer materials that are easy to handle and with good soaking capacity. Furthermore, ants can learn to use artificial material that is novel to them and select the material with optimal soaking properties, thus showing that tool use is not behaviourally fixed in ants (Maák et al., 2017). Tool selection also depends on the foraging environment and varies with food type (viscosity), distance, and availability of tools (Lőrinczi et al., 2018).

The process of tool use in ants has not been studied at the individual level. In particular, we do not know whether any forager with sufficient information about the location of the food and the availability of the tools would perform tool use or whether there are specialised workers which perform tool use repeatedly. In A. rudis, it was observed that the tool use behaviour is carried out by a small subset of individuals within the group of foragers and only a small number of workers perform the debris dropping task (Banschbach et al., 2006). In A. subterranea as well, the proportion of workers observed to use tools was only a small fraction of the total number of foragers. The number of tool users did not increase with colony size, while the number of total foragers did. Moreover, there was no significant relationship between the number of ants working at the debris dropping task and the number of debris pieces dropped, indicating that a small number of workers can perform this task very efficiently (Lőrinczi, 2014).

We asked the question of what makes a good tool user in A. senilis ants. It is indeed unknown whether some individual characteristics of workers, such as personality traits, would predict tool use behaviour. When inter-individual differences in behavioural traits are consistent across time and/or context they are considered personality traits (Réale and Dingemanse, 2012). In ants, both workers and colonies can show personalities (Pinter-Wollman, 2012) and there is a link between individual and collective behaviour (Carere et al., 2018). There is some evidence that the allocation of workers to a certain task may be influenced by individual personality, for instance in the ant Leptothorax acervorum (Kühbandner et al., 2014), where more exploratory and aggressive workers were also more active in the nest (rested less). This inter-individual difference could enhance division of labour (Jeanson and Weidenmüller, 2014), the phenomenon in which different individuals perform different tasks. Division of labour is beneficial for colony organisation and it is believed to be one of the principal factors explaining the extraordinary ecological success of social insects (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990). A broadly acknowledged model explaining the emergence of division of labour within a colony is the ‘response threshold model’, which posits that individual workers differ in their sensory perception and/or in their behavioural responses to stimuli associated with specific tasks (Robinson, 1992; Beshers and Fewell, 2001). However, the possible interplay between consistent individual differences and division of labour has not been explored (Jeanson and Weidenmüller, 2014).

We also know that there is an association between personality traits and cognitive traits in ants. Consistent individual differences in exploratory activity predicted learning performance of individual carpenter ants, with ‘active-explorers’ being slower in learning than ‘inactive-explorers’ (Udino et al., 2017) and individual differences in exploratory activity were linked to cognitive judgement bias, the propensity to anticipate either positive or negative consequences in response to ambiguous information (d'Ettorre et al., 2017). Therefore, we expected a link between individual personality traits and tool use.

We performed three different experiments to study the tool use behaviour at the individual level in the ant A. senilis. In Experiment 1, we observed the tool use process in whole colonies to characterise the behaviour of ants during the two parts of the process: the transport of tools to the bait and the transport of tools from the bait to the nest. In social insects, task partitioning -a phenomenon in which a piece of work is divided among two or more workers- has been reported in a wide variety of foraging tasks in several species of ants, bees, wasps and termites (Ratnieks and Anderson, 1999). However, partitioning may reduce task efficiency and reliability unless the number of workers involved in the task is high or a given subtask is carried out by morphologically specialised workers (Ratnieks and Anderson, 1999). In Aphaenogaster, workers are morphologically similar, therefore we predicted that we would not observe task partitioning and that the same worker could perform both parts of the task.

In Experiment 2, we created sub-colonies to investigate whether there is an individual specialisation in tool use. Are the same ants using tools repeatedly? Are ants that use tools to collect liquid food also transporting solid food items? We predicted that ants would specialise in tool use only, under the general assumption that specialised individuals work more efficiently than less specialised ones (Robinson, 1992). In this experiment, we also asked whether the simple fact of observing nestmates using tools during one trial would facilitate the task performance of naive workers by social learning. The involvement of social learning in solving complex tasks has been shown in social insects, for instance, bumblebees (Loukola et al., 2017).

In Experiment 3, we studied the possible link between individual personality traits and tool use. Previous studies demonstrated the existence of colony-level personality in A. senilis (Blight et al., 2016a; Blight et al., 2016b), we thus predicted that consistent behavioural differences will be found also at the individual level in this species (worker personality). Using workers that were individually characterised for personality traits, namely exploratory activity and reaction to prey, we created sub-colonies that were tested in tool use trials. After each trial, the ants that used tools were removed from the sub-colony. Thus, we could test whether personality would predict which ants will become tool users in the next trial.

Workers of some ant species use debris as tools to collect and transport liquid food to the nest. We studied tool use behaviour at the individual level in Aphaenogaster senilis to determine whether any forager that knows the location of the food and the tools puts the two together, or if it is an attribute of a subset of workers. Three experiments explored this question. Experiments 1 and 3 showed that several workers contacted the food and the tools before the first tool user started transporting tools to the bait. Therefore, tool users were not simply the first workers that learned about the location of the food and the tools. Experiment 2 showed that only a small subset of foragers (about 8%) used tools and that the observed individual distribution of tool use events was not random. Moreover, tool use was a significantly repeatable behaviour across trials at the individual level. Finally, in experiment 3, we found that workers show consistent inter-individual behavioural variation in exploratory activity and reaction to prey. These highly repeatable behavioural traits were used to calculate a personality score that significantly predicted the probability of using tools. Based solely on these behavioural traits we could distinguish two groups of workers: the tool users and the non-tool users. In sum, our data indicate that tool use is not a stochastic phenomenon but it is performed by a subset of workers with specific behavioural traits.

In both experiments 1 and 2, we observed tool users performing repeated tool transport within the same trial and also between trials. In experiment 2, more than 60% of the tool users performed repeated tool transport to the bait and their efficiency increased during the process: for a given ant, the time to transport one tool decreased with the number of tools transported and was not affected by the presence of another worker transporting tools. This improved efficiency is likely explained by the fact that ants learned the location of the tools with respect to the bait and could return quickly to pick up the next tool. In several ant species, foraging speed is enhanced by route learning (Czaczkes et al., 2011; Pasquier and Grüter, 2016), which appears to be a general phenomenon. More than 30% of the tool users participated in more than one trial, nevertheless, the performance of these workers did not improve along with the trials as the average time to transport a tool did not change significantly across trials. In other social insect species, however, an improvement over consecutive trials has been observed. For instance, bees become more efficient in foraging with experience (Dukas and Visscher, 1994; Klein et al., 2019) and, in the context of nest emigration, Temnothorax albipennis ant workers improve their performance over successive emigrations (Langridge et al., 2008). This suggests that in A. senilis the limiting factor to speed up the process is memorising the location of the tools, which is different in every trial.

In experiment 1, we observed that the same ant could perform both parts of the tool use task, that is transport of tools to the bait and from the bait to the nest. Therefore, as we predicted, there was no clear evidence of task partitioning. Nevertheless, our results regarding the lack of task partitioning are not conclusive due to the relatively small total number of ants that were observed participating in both parts of tool use process. To the best of our knowledge, the observations reported in the literature also lack conclusive evidence. In A. rudis, similarly to A. senilis, no evidence of task partitioning was found (Banschbach et al., 2006), although task partitioning was suggested in earlier observations of A. famelica (Tanaka and Ono, 1978). This suggests that this behavioural aspect might be species-specific but ideally requires further research.

The results of experiment one also showed that the dynamics of tool transport to the bait does not influence the transport of food-imbibed tools to the nest, which starts on average 2 hrs after completion of the first part. In natural conditions, covering the food quickly with debris gives an advantage to Aphaenogaster ants in the competition with more dominant ant species, which cannot exploit the food once it is covered (Fellers and Fellers, 1976), thus leaving plenty of time for Aphaenogaster to bring the food-imbibed tools to the nest. Therefore, it appears to be advantageous to first completely cover the food with debris and then to start transporting them to the nest. During the first part of the process, the results of experiment one showed that the higher the number of workers present in the foraging area the shorter was the latency to start the tool use process. A shorter latency resulted in a shorter total time to complete the task, but interestingly, this did not depend on the number of workers involved in tool use. Enhanced efficiency related to shorter latency was also found in the ant Temnothorax albipennis, where shorter recruitment latencies to high quality nest sites, compared to low-quality ones, improved the nest emigration process (Mallon et al., 2001; but see Robinson et al., 2009). Similarly, in the ant Formica fusca, shorter latencies to return to the nest after exploration of a novel arena characterised larger colonies and indicated efficient exploration of the surroundings (Somogyi et al., 2020).

Tool use events were not randomly distributed among workers, however, the results of experiment two also indicate that tool users were not necessarily specialised only in this task. About half of the workers that transported solid food (cricket legs) were also tool users. This may not hinder efficiency since it has been shown that task specialisation does not translate into higher performance in ant species without morphologically differentiated workers (Dornhaus, 2008). Some workers exhibited very high activity by participating in several tool use trials and transporting more than one cricket leg. These resemble ‘elite’ workers that show high performance in several tasks, as observed in some ant species (Robson and Traniello, 1999; Pinter-Wollman et al., 2012). It would be interesting to test whether these very active workers act as key individuals that increase the activity level of group members (Robson and Traniello, 1999).

In experiment 2, we also tested whether the simple fact of observing nestmates transporting tools during one trial would facilitate the task performance of naïve workers via social learning. We did not find a difference in the performance of workers that were given the possibility to observe nestmates performing tool use and workers that did not have this possibility, suggesting that social learning might not be involved in the ontogeny of the tool use behaviour in A. senilis. Our finding is in agreement with the observation by Tanaka and Ono, 1978 that naïve foragers can carry out tool use in A. famelica. Spontaneous tool use and manufacture has been also shown in vertebrates, such as naive juvenile New Caledonian crows (Kenward et al., 2005), while social learning appears to be essential when the task is complex and non-natural, as observed in bumblebees (Alem et al., 2016; Loukola et al., 2017). Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that in the present study we used only one type of tool. We know that Aphaenogaster ants are able to select among different types of tools according to their soaking capacity and the environmental context (Maák et al., 2017; Lőrinczi et al., 2018) and that they learn to choose the optimal tools over successive trials (Maák et al., 2017), therefore we cannot exclude that social learning could play a role in the process of tool selection, a possibility that awaits formal testing.

Experiment 3 clearly showed that workers of A. senilis are characterised by consistent behavioural variation at the individual level concerning exploratory activity and reaction to prey. Consistent inter-individual behavioural variation has also been shown in other ant species (e.g. Kühbandner et al., 2014; Udino et al., 2017) and it might be a general characteristic of workers. What is new in our work is the discovery that individual behavioural variability is directly linked to the probability to perform a certain task, in this case tool use. Workers with a positive personality score, characterised by high explorative behaviour and prey-attraction, were more likely to be involved in tool use than workers with a less positive or negative personality score. Despite finding relatively small effect sizes in the analysis of the personality data, our results reveal the importance of even slight individual differences in behavioural traits, if they are consistent, in the organisation of social life. Inter-individual variability is the basis for division of labour, the phenomenon in which different individuals perform different tasks. According to the ‘response threshold model’ (Robinson, 1992; Beshers and Fewell, 2001), workers characterised by a low threshold will respond to low stimulus intensity (high responsiveness), while workers with high threshold will respond to high stimulus intensity (low responsiveness) (Bonabeau et al., 1996). Several proximate mechanisms underlying inter-individual behavioural variability have been described, including genetic diversity, ontogeny, nutrition, experience and learning (reviewed in Jeanson and Weidenmüller, 2014). Experience may act as ‘self-reinforcement’ and directly modulate the individual response threshold. It was hypothesised that the simple fact of performing a task would lower the corresponding stimulus threshold, while not performing a task would further increase the individual threshold (Theraulaz et al., 1998). Indeed, a study using clonal ants showed that, all else being equal, foragers that were successful had a higher probability to perform the foraging task again, compared to unsuccessful foragers, which specialised in brood care (Ravary et al., 2007).

Individual personality differences within a given behavioural group (foragers, nurses) may contribute to a fine-tuned division of labour but this possibility is relatively unexplored. A study in honeybees found evidence for life-long personality differences in workers and suggested that the response thresholds to some stimuli could be related to personality type, thus contributing to more robust inter-individual behavioural differences leading to division of labour even when individuals age together or share similar experiences (Walton and Toth, 2016). In carpenter ants, there is evidence for inter-individual variability in sucrose responsiveness and learning success in different behavioural groups of workers performing different tasks (Perez et al., 2013). In the ant Myrmica rubra, individual personality differences are connected to spatial fidelity (the position in the nest) and ants located in a given position show low thresholds to perform tasks associated with that position, thus generating division of labour (Pamminger et al., 2014). However, examples of interplay between personality and task performance in social insects are generally scarce.

Individual behavioural flexibility is another important aspect guaranteeing division of labour in social insects, particularly following changes in the social environment, such as changes in colony demography (Jeanson, 2019). We found that A. senilis colonies could cope well with the removal of active tool users, which were immediately replaced by individuals that were previously less active. Similarly, in the red harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus, when the most active foragers were experimentally removed they were replaced by other individuals (Beverly et al., 2009). In the ant Temnothorax rugatulus as well, when the most active nurses and foragers were removed they were quickly replaced by workers from the reserve pool of inactive individuals (Charbonneau et al., 2017). In T. albipennis, in the context of nest emigration, 20% of ants were more active and performed transports repeatedly in successive experimental emigration trials (Pinter-Wollman et al., 2012). Pinter-Wollman et al., 2012 performed an experiment in which they removed these active ants during some emigration trials and then they put them back. Removed active ants were replaced by previously less active individuals, but when they were returned to the colony they did not resume their active role, they were thus permanently replaced. The authors suggest that modifications in the social context and experience can cause a long-lasting change in the response threshold of workers (Pinter-Wollman et al., 2012; Jeanson, 2019). This is not what we observed in A. senilis, in which many of the removed active workers resumed tool use when they were returned to their sub-colony in the last trial with 20 tools, including workers that were removed 10 days earlier (after the very first trial). This is not surprising if we consider that the probability to perform tool use in A. senilis is linked to personality, which, by definition, is consistent over time.

In conclusion, our work shows that instead of extreme task specialisation, the involvement of workers with appropriate personality ensures high efficiency in tool use. Given the scarcity of examples linking individual personality and task performance in social insects, our study provides new insight into the interplay between personality and division of labour and should encourage further theoretical and empirical studies in this direction.

All data generated during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for all Figures.

1. 1. Agbogba C

   (1985)

   Observations on foraging of liquid sugar and insect body fluids by two species of Aphaenogaster: A. senilis and A. subterranea (Hym Formicidae)

   Insect Soc 32:427–434.

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Alem S
   2. Perry CJ
   3. Zhu X
   4. Loukola OJ
   5. Ingraham T
   6. Søvik E
   7. Chittka L

   (2016) Associative mechanisms allow for social learning and cultural transmission of string pulling in an insect

   PLOS Biology 14:e1002564.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002564

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Auersperg AMI
   2. von Bayern AMI
   3. Weber S
   4. Szabadvari A
   5. Bugnyar T
   6. Kacelnik A

   (2014) Social transmission of tool use and tool manufacture in Goffin cockatoos ( Cacatua goffini )

   Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20140972.

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0972

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Banschbach VS
   2. Brunelle A
   3. Bartlett KM
   4. Grivetti JY
   5. Yeamans RL

   (2006) Tool use by the forest ant Aphaenogaster rudis: ecology and task allocation

   Insectes Sociaux 53:463–471.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-006-0897-2

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Barber JT
   2. Ellgaard EG
   3. Thien LB
   4. Stack AE

   (1989) The use of tools for food transportation by the imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta

   Animal Behaviour 38:550–552.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(89)80052-1

   • Google Scholar
6. Software

   1. Bates D
   2. Maechler M

   (2013) Lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4, version 1.0-5

   R package.

   http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
7. 1. Beshers SN
   2. Fewell JH

   (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects

   Annual Review of Entomology 46:413–440.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.413

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Beverly BD
   2. McLendon H
   3. Nacu S
   4. Holmes S
   5. Gordon DM

   (2009) How site fidelity leads to individual differences in the foraging activity of harvester ants

   Behavioral Ecology 20:633–638.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp041

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Blight O
   2. Albet Díaz-Mariblanca G
   3. Cerdá X
   4. Boulay R

   (2016a) A proactive–reactive syndrome affects group success in an ant species

   Behavioral Ecology 27:118–125.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arv127

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Blight O
    2. Villalta I
    3. Cerdá X
    4. Boulay R

    (2016b) Personality traits are associated with colony productivity in the gypsy ant Aphaenogaster senilis

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70:2203–2209.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2224-x

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bonabeau E
    2. Theraulaz G
    3. Deneubourg JL

    (1996) Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labour in insect societies

    Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1565–1569.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1996.0229

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Boulay R
    2. Hefetz A
    3. Cerdá X
    4. Devers S
    5. Francke W
    6. Twele R
    7. Lenoir A

    (2007) Production of sexuals in a fission-performing ant: dual effects of queen pheromones and colony size

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61:1531–1541.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0385-3

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Carere C
    2. Audebrand C
    3. Rödel HG
    4. d'Ettorre P

    (2018) Individual behavioural type and group performance in Formica fusca ants

    Behavioural Processes 157:402–407.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.07.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cerdá X
    2. Retana J
    3. Cros S

    (1998) Critical thermal limits in Mediterranean ant species: trade-off between mortality risk and foraging performance

    Functional Ecology 12:45–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00160.x

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Charbonneau D
    2. Sasaki T
    3. Dornhaus A

    (2017) Who needs 'lazy' workers? Inactive workers act as a 'reserve' labor force replacing active workers, but inactive workers are not replaced when they are removed

    PLOS ONE 12:e0184074.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Czaczkes TJ
    2. Grüter C
    3. Jones SM
    4. Ratnieks FL

    (2011) Synergy between social and private information increases foraging efficiency in ants

    Biology Letters 7:521–524.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0067

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. d'Ettorre P
    2. Carere C
    3. Demora L
    4. Le Quinquis P
    5. Signorotti L
    6. Bovet D

    (2017) Individual differences in exploratory activity relate to cognitive judgement Bias in carpenter ants

    Behavioural Processes 134:63–69.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.09.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Davidson DW
    2. Cook SC
    3. Snelling RR

    (2004) Liquid-feeding performances of ants (Formicidae): ecological and evolutionary implications

    Oecologia 139:255–266.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1508-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Delage B
    2. Jaisson P

    (1969)

    Social relations among ants of the genus Aphaenogaster

    Sciences Naturelles 268:701–703.

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Dornhaus A

    (2008) Specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant

    PLOS Biology 6:e285.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060285

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dukas R
    2. Visscher PK

    (1994) Lifetime learning by foraging honey bees

    Animal Behaviour 48:1007–1012.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1333

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Falótico T
    2. Proffitt T
    3. Ottoni EB
    4. Staff RA
    5. Haslam M

    (2019) Three thousand years of wild capuchin stone tool use

    Nature Ecology & Evolution 3:1034–1038.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0904-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Fayet AL
    2. Hansen ES
    3. Biro D

    (2020) Evidence of tool use in a seabird

    PNAS 117:1277–1279.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918060117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Fellers JH
    2. Fellers GM

    (1976) Tool use in a social insect and its implications for competitive interactions

    Science 192:70–72.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.192.4234.70

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. Book

    1. Hölldobler B
    2. Wilson EO

    (1990)

    The Ants

     Cambridge, USA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hunt GR
    2. Gray RD

    (2002) Species-wide manufacture of stick-type tools by new caledonian crows

    Emu - Austral Ornithology 102:349–353.

    https://doi.org/10.1071/MU01056

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Jeanson R

    (2019) Within-individual behavioural variability and division of labour in social insects

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 222:jeb190868.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.190868

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Jeanson R
    2. Weidenmüller A

    (2014) Interindividual variability in social insects - proximate causes and ultimate consequences

    Biological Reviews 89:671–687.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Kenward B
    2. Weir AAS
    3. Ch R
    4. Kacelnik A

    (2005) Tool manufacture by naive juvenile crows

    Nature 433:121.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/433121a

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Klein S
    2. Pasquaretta C
    3. He XJ
    4. Perry C
    5. Søvik E
    6. Devaud JM
    7. Barron AB
    8. Lihoreau M

    (2019) Honey bees increase their foraging performance and frequency of pollen trips through experience

    Scientific Reports 9:6778.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42677-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kühbandner S
    2. Modlmeier AP
    3. Foitzik S

    (2014) Age and ovarian development are related to worker personality and task allocation in the ant Leptothorax acervorum

    Current Zoology 60:392–400.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/60.3.392

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Langridge EA
    2. Sendova-Franks AB
    3. Franks NR

    (2008) How experienced individuals contribute to an improvement in collective performance in ants

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62:447–456.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0472-5

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Le S
    2. Josse J
    3. Husson F

    (2008) FactoMineR : An R Package for Multivariate Analysis

    Journal of Statistical Software 25:1–18.

    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Lessells CM
    2. Boag PT

    (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake

    The Auk 104:116–121.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/4087240

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Lőrinczi G

    (2014)

    Some notes on the tool-using behaviour of the ant, Aphaenogaster subterranea (Hymenoptera: formicidae)

    Tiscia 40:17–24.

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Lőrinczi G
    2. Módra G
    3. Juhász O
    4. Maák IE

    (2018) Which tools to use? choice optimization in the tool-using ant, Aphaenogaster subterranea

    Behavioral Ecology 29:1444–1452.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary110

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Loukola OJ
    2. Perry CJ
    3. Coscos L
    4. Chittka L

    (2017) Bumblebees show cognitive flexibility by improving on an observed complex behavior

    Science 355:833–836.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2360

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Maák I
    2. Lőrinczi G
    3. Le Quinquis P
    4. Módra G
    5. Bovet D
    6. Call J
    7. d'Ettorre P

    (2017) Tool selection during foraging in two species of funnel ants

    Animal Behaviour 123:207–216.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.11.005

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Mallon E
    2. Pratt S
    3. Franks N

    (2001) Individual and collective decision-making during nest site selection by the ant Leptothorax albipennis

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 50:352–359.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650100377

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Martin-Ordas G
    2. Schumacher L
    3. Call J

    (2012) Sequential tool use in great apes

    PLOS ONE 7:e52074.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. McDonald P

    (1984)

    Tool use by the ant, Novomessor albisetosus (Mayr)

    J New York Entomol S 92:156–161.

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Morrill WL

    (1972) Tool using behavior of Pogonomyrmex badius (Hymenoptera: formicidae)

    The Florida Entomologist 55:59–60.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/3493647

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Schielzeth H

    (2010) Repeatability for gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists

    Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 85:935–956.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00141.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Pamminger T
    2. Foitzik S
    3. Kaufmann KC
    4. Schützler N
    5. Menzel F

    (2014) Worker personality and its association with spatially structured division of labor

    PLOS ONE 9:e79616.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079616

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Pasquier G
    2. Grüter C

    (2016) Individual learning performance and exploratory activity are linked to colony foraging success in a mass-recruiting ant

    Behavioral Ecology 58:arw079–1709.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw079

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Perez M
    2. Rolland U
    3. Giurfa M
    4. d'Ettorre P

    (2013) Sucrose responsiveness, learning success, and task specialization in ants

    Learning & Memory 20:417–420.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.031427.113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Pinter-Wollman N

    (2012) Personality in social insects: how does worker personality determine colony personality?

    Current Zoology 58:580–588.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/58.4.580

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Pinter-Wollman N
    2. Hubler J
    3. Holley J-A
    4. Franks NR
    5. Dornhaus A

    (2012) How is activity distributed among and within tasks in Temnothorax ants?

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 66:1407–1420.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1396-2

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Prut L
    2. Belzung C

    (2003) The open field as a paradigm to measure the effects of drugs on anxiety-like behaviors: a review

    European Journal of Pharmacology 463:3–33.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2999(03)01272-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 2.6.2

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.R-project.org/
51. 1. Ratnieks FLW
    2. Anderson C

    (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies

    Insectes Sociaux 46:95–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s000400050119

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Ravary F
    2. Lecoutey E
    3. Kaminski G
    4. Châline N
    5. Jaisson P

    (2007) Individual experience alone can generate lasting division of labor in ants

    Current Biology 17:1308–1312.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. Book

    1. Réale D
    2. Dingemanse NJ

    (2012) Animal Personality

    Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0023570

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Robinson GE

    (1992) Regulation of division of labor in insect societies

    Annual Review of Entomology 37:637–665.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.003225

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Robinson EJH
    2. Smith FD
    3. Sullivan KME
    4. Franks NR

    (2009) Do ants make direct comparisons?

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:2635–2641.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0350

    • Google Scholar
56. Book

    1. Robson SK
    2. Traniello JFA

    (1999)

    Key individuals and the organization of labor in ants

    In: Detrain C, Deneubourg J. L, Pasteels J. M, editors. Information Processing in Social Insects. Basel: Birkhauser. pp. 239–260.

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Root-Bernstein M
    2. Narayan T
    3. Cornier L
    4. Bourgeois A

    (2019) Context-specific tool use by Sus cebifrons

    Mammalian Biology 98:102–110.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.08.003

    • Google Scholar
58. Book

    1. Sanz C
    2. Call J
    3. Boesch C

    (2013)

    Tool Use in Animals: Cognition and Ecology

    New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    • Google Scholar
59. Book

    1. Shumaker RW
    2. Walkup KR
    3. Beck BB

    (2011)

    Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tool by Animals

    Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Smith
    2. Bentley-Condit V

    (2010) Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog

    Behaviour 147:185.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/000579509X12512865686555

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Somogyi AÁ
    2. Tartally A
    3. Maák IE
    4. Barta Z

    (2020) Colony size, nestmate density and social history shape behavioural variation in Formica fusca colonies

    Ethology 126:727–734.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13022

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Stoffel MA
    2. Nakagawa S
    3. Schielzeth H

    (2017) rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed‐effects models

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8:1639–1644.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12797

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Tanaka T
    2. Ono Y

    (1978) The tool use by foragers of Aphaenogaster famelica

    Japanese Journal of Ecology 28:49–58.

    https://doi.org/10.18960/seitai.28.1_49

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Theraulaz G
    2. Bonabeau E
    3. Denuebourg J-N

    (1998) Response threshold reinforcements and division of labour in insect societies

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 265:327–332.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0299

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Udino E
    2. Perez M
    3. Carere C
    4. d'Ettorre P

    (2017) Active explorer show low learning performance in a social insect

    Current Zoology 63:555–560.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zow101

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Visalberghi E
    2. Addessi E
    3. Truppa V
    4. Spagnoletti N
    5. Ottoni E
    6. Izar P
    7. Fragaszy D

    (2009) Selection of Effective Stone Tools by Wild Bearded Capuchin Monkeys

    Current Biology 19:213–217.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.11.064

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Walton A
    2. Toth AL

    (2016) Variation in individual worker honey bee behavior shows hallmarks of personality

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70:999–1010.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2084-4

    • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

This study uses multiple experimental paradigms to investigate tool use in an ant species at both the individual and colony level. The authors show that tool use is performed by only a fraction of the non-specialized workers present. However, workers with specific personality traits, namely those that are more explorative and attracted to prey, were most likely to become tool users in the colony.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "A small number of workers with specific personality traits perform tool use in ants" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor.

Our decision has been reached after consultation between the reviewers. Although all reviewers found your manuscript interesting, they raised a large number of substantive concerns about the methodology and analyses. Additional work is required to address these points (including a comprehensive personality assay), which may fundamentally change the conclusions drawn. Based on the reviewers' extensive discussions, and their individual reviews appended below, we regret to inform you that your work, in its present form, will not be considered further for publication in eLife. We are willing to allow submission of a new manuscript that contains new experiments addressing the shortcomings of the present study, but please note that resubmission does not guarantee another round of in-depth review, let alone eventual acceptance.

This is a summary of the main concerns:

1) Personality claim: While this finding was the most novel, we found it to be poorly supported by the evidence presented. The two assays used to assess personality essentially only test for exploration activity, since both assays measure search/exploration time (since prey contact time is likely to be dependent on exploration, those ants who explore more will find the prey faster). In order to assess personality, we would expect more than one facet of personality to be measured, such as sociability, aggression etc. (see Udino et al., 2017). Such an approach would warrant reference to personality in this manuscript, and be much more convincing.

2) Tool-use assay: Related to the previous point, the fact that the experimental assay is also in itself an exploration assay is problematic. Without controlling for discovery or tool encounter rates, the finding can simply be explained as "those ants which are more likely to explore more are more likely to use tools". Given this confound, linking tool use to any aspect of personality is problematic.

3) Lack of clear hypotheses being presented: There is no mention of null hypotheses and predictions for the different experiments, which makes it difficult to assess results. Moreover, alternative hypotheses have not been sufficiently addressed in the manuscript (see detailed reviewer reports for more information).

4) The statistical analyses need improvement: This includes revising models where critical random or control effects appear to have been left out to ensure results are robust, adding effect sizes for all main results as well as other concerns (see reviewer reports). The authors should also include full code for all analyses rather than only the model specifications.

5) Additional concerns regarding the contextualization of the manuscript, clarity of the Materials and methods and reporting of results were brought up and can be found in the detailed reviewer reports below.

Reviewer #1:

The author's present an excellent set of experiments investigating task partitioning and specialization in one species of ants that are well known for using tools to transport food. The novel aspect of this manuscript specifically tests whether individual personality characteristics are associated with tool-use propensity, which if I understand correctly, goes beyond the usual colony approach to such questions. Overall I found the paper well written, the experiments clearly described and well designed, and the results easy to understand. The paper is likely to be of interest to a wide range of animal behavioural ecologists and I think warrants publication in eLife. However, I do have a couple major concerns that would need to be addressed in a revision.

1) The Introduction is generally well written but there is a lack of integration for introducing the experiments and aims of the study. The paragraph that begins “ We performed three different experiments to study the tool use behaviour…” needs to be more detailed rather than simply outlining each experiment. Can the authors include more about the overall hypotheses of the study and the predictions for the experiments? What is the aim of each experiment with respect to your overall research questions? This will also better prepare the reader for what and why particular analyses will be done for each experiment.

Essentially I think the authors can do a much better job to present the results of their experiments in a more unified and compelling way with respect to specific research questions and hypotheses.

2) The above issue, of the experiments being presented distinct and separate rather than contributing to an overall research goal needs improvement also in the Discussion. In fact parts of the Discussion would be better suited (and would be very helpful) in the Introduction. For example theoretical framing and predictions. The first two paragraphs are highly repetitive of the results but around the middle of paragraph three this improves considerably. Rather, it would be nice for the Discussion to start by briefly summarize findings across experiments with their relative contribution to the goals/hypotheses of the study.

3) My last concern includes missing random or control fixed effects in some of the mixed models used in the statistical analysis. I outline these below in detail but essentially without controlling for this additional substructure in the data the authors run the risk of producing erroneous results. Please have a look at the statistical suggestions and modify and re-run the relevant models where necessary.

Reviewer #2:

This study asks an interesting and timely question ("which individual ants perform tool use, and is tool use a personality trait?"). The experiments are performed carefully. The writing is clear. The Introduction introduces the topic well. The full data are provided in a clear manner, which is fantastic. However, I have several concerns about the conclusions drawn from the data. Firstly, some of the results on which conclusions are based are not compared against a null expectation. Secondly, and most critically, the “tool use” personality assay may not reflect anything more than tool discovery, and may thus conceptually identical to the exploration assay. The Discussion is somewhat unfocussed. In terms of subjective interest, I judge the results of experiments 1 and 2 to be not exciting enough for eLife. The conclusions arising from experiment 3 are exciting, but may not be supported by the data. Addressing my major concerns may require more video and statistical analysis, but will not require new experiments to be performed.

1) "Only a small number of workers performed tool use" this is technically true, but throughout the manuscript there is the implication that the tool users are in some way special (Results: "only a few workers performed the tool use behaviour"). The “null model” here would be that any ant with sufficient information has the same probability of performing tool use. Specifically, an ant must encounter both the tools and the food to perform tool use. As the results presented show, once tool use starts, almost all the tools are “used up” by one or two individuals very quickly, not giving other ants a chance to perform tool use, even if they could. The proportion of ants performing tool use is given. To put this in context, we need to know the proportion of ants which encountered tools and food at all. This “null hypothesis” needs to be explicitly presented, and refuted or not, given the data.

2) All the results presented in paragraph five are given without context of a null model, and are thus meaningless. I.e., if you randomly distributed the same number of transport events and tool use events over the same number of individuals and trials, would you get similar proportions? The empirical results can be compared to randomised data in order to clarify whether these results represent more than probabilistic behaviour amongst homogenous ants.

3) "The consecutive transport of several tools within one trial enhanced the efficiency of a tool using worker." This is interpretation, not results, and alternative null hypotheses are not excluded. It could be that when an ant “feels” like being efficient, it transports many tools and does so quickly. In other words, the “second tool” group (Figure 1B) may contain both slow ants which only manage 2 trips, and fast ants which manage 4. The “fourth tool” group only contains ants which manage at least 4 trips. Moreover, and more critically, it makes simple sense that when an ant works faster, it can manage more tools in a given time. To truly demonstrate improvement over time, only ants which manage 4 transport events should be considered, and the rank of the transport event used to predict transport speed. This may or may not have been done, the description of the analysis was not clear. The raw data is not separated by individual ant ID, so I could not check this myself.

4) The effect size of the key finding is not given. Examining the data, the normalized personality score ranges from -4 to 3 – so 7 in total. The non-tool users have an average score of -0.33. The tool users have a mean score of 0.57. I managed to recreate the analysis, and found an effect estimate of 0.6174. Using emmeans, we get a prob estimate of 0.349. This means that while the effect is highly significant, I would not say the effect size is very large.

5) I am not convinced that the “tool use” assay in experiment 3 is showing anything more than tool and food discovery probability. It stands to reason that ants which spend more time in the centre of the arena and less time on the periphery (the main components of the personality score) are more likely to encounter both the tools and the food first, and thus be in a position to being doing tool use, perhaps using up all the tools before the other workers found them, but definitely reducing the probability of other workers finding the tools (as fewer tools remain). The authors need to demonstrate that ants with a higher personality score are more likely to perform tool use even when controlling for opportunity. Otherwise, the seemingly interesting results boil down to "ants which spend more time in the centre of the arena are more likely to find things in the centre of the arena", which is not a very exciting result.

Reviewer #3:

In this manuscript, the authors perform three experiments of Aphaenogaster senilis using tools (e.g. debris) to soak up a liquid food resource to be carried to their nest. The primary conclusion is that a small subset of workers uses these tools, and they do so because of specific personality traits. I found the study to be quite interesting and the paper to be well-written. The authors have strong support for most of their conclusions, and indeed for the first part of their main conclusion, that only a small subset of workers perform the task, but I am less confident in the authors' evidence for the second part of that main conclusion, that these differences are due to specific personality traits.

My primary concern is in how the authors measured personality traits in workers. They performed each of two tests on two occasions: an open field test and test in which individuals could interact with prey. They found that certain behavioral traits (e.g. time spent in central arena in open field and time spent interacting with prey) were significant repeatable across the two timepoints, and conclude that these are personality traits. They then use a PCA to show that these behavioral traits correlate with tool use (ants that explored more were more likely to use tools). This consistency over time is necessary for personality, but as far as I can tell the authors did not test whether these behaviors were consistent across contexts, which is also important (I might also prefer to see more than 2 timepoints tested, though this is a minor concern). So there is a behavioral trait that is correlated across time but not contexts; I do not find this to be rigorous evidence of personality. In addition to the possibility of it being "personality" driving tool use, a non-mutually-exclusive possibility is that ants who explore more are more likely to find the tools sooner, thus becoming the tool-users, which I'm glad that the authors also discuss as a likely explanation.

I must admit that I am generally a little sceptical of the special attention sometimes placed on the idea of animal personality. To me, it is not inherently more interesting if tool use is due to a behavioral trait that is or is not consistent across contexts. Indeed, I would find the study just as interesting if the authors did not discuss personality, per se (though it is possible this would make it less broadly appealing). And I think the conclusion would be better supported and more compelling.

Other than this concern related to personality, I found the conclusions to be generally well supported. I thought it was interesting that workers improve in tool-use performance within but not across trials, and I think the authors suggestion that this relates to route-learning is a good one.

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for submitting your article "A small number of workers with specific personality traits performs tool use in ants" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by Christian Rutz as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in the review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Tomer J Czaczkes (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision letter to help you prepare a revised submission.

We would like to draw your attention to changes in our revision policy that we have made in response to COVID-19 (https://elifesciences.org/articles/57162). Specifically, we are asking editors to accept without delay manuscripts, like yours, that they judge can stand as eLife papers without additional data, even if they feel that they would make the manuscript stronger. Thus the revisions requested below only address clarity and presentation.

Summary:

Tool use is relatively rare in the animal kingdom and therefore of widespread academic interest. In addition to vertebrates, some social insects also demonstrate flexible tool use behaviours. In this manuscript, Maák et al. investigate task specialization, social learning and personality effects relating to tool use in the ant species Aphaenogaster senilis. These ants engage in tool-assisted foraging whereby debris is used as a tool to soak up liquid food, which is then transported to the nest. Previous research has shown that workers of this species can learn to use artificial materials as tools and will select the best tools based on optimal soaking characteristics.

Using a collection of three experiments, the authors demonstrate that only a small number of workers in A. senilis perform the tool use task but that these workers are not specialized in tool use, in that they will also carry and transport solid food items to the nest without tools. The authors found no support for social learning, specifically workers who had observed successful tool users were not more likely to become tool users themselves in subsequent trials. Remarkably, the authors did show that workers with certain personality traits were more likely to become tool users if previous tool users were removed from the colony.

Although the absolute number of workers demonstrating these phenomena was small, and further research is needed to address the repeatability and longer-term associations of worker personality and tool use behaviour, the overall contribution of this manuscript is valuable for its novel insight into tool-use behaviour in social insects at the individual level, going beyond colony dynamics.

Revisions:

The reviewers were all very content with the revised submission and congratulate the authors on substantially improving the manuscript by seriously taking into account our initial feedback. We had only a handful of major comments left that should be addressed before publication.

1) Please explain why exploring the periphery of the plate in your open field test would not in fact be ants that are the most exploratory and how this affects your inference about tool users being more explorative. Those ants who explore only in the center could actually be argued to be less explorative. Perhaps this trait needs rephrasing?

2) Can you strengthen the claim that tool users are the same individuals across trials (i.e., repeatability across trials) or at least make this more clear and transparent? A corollary of the personality-tool use conclusion is that you should have more individuals repeating tool use across multiple trials than expected by chance. This should mean that the same ants use tools over and over again. We are convinced that this is true at least within a trial, but do we see it across trials, as we should? The authors say that we do and provide evidence from experiment 1, in Table 2, and from experiment 2. However the evidence for experiments 1 is weak if we are interpreting Table 2 correctly, in total for the 3 colonies they saw only 2 ants transport tools to the bait in multiple trials (out of 19 marked tool users), and only 3 ants transport tools to the nest in multiple trials (out of 17 marker tool users). Is this actually more than would be expected by chance?

Indeed, experiment 3 provides the best evidence of personality predicting tool use across trials but given the low absolute numbers in repeat tool users across trials for Experiments 1 and 2 we would like the authors to discuss this aspect more critically in the manuscript.

3) Perhaps related to the above point, some of the results should be discussed with more transparency and caution. Specifically, can you acknowledge that effect sizes are small for the personality results and add why this small effect is still important. Please also address in the manuscript that your results for a lack of task partitioning are still not conclusive (due to the low number of ants that complete both parts of the tool use task, i.e. Table 2) and ideally requires further research.

4) Please add the latency to find prey and contact time correlation that was in the revisions letter to the reviewers but was not added to the manuscript. It would also be important to provide the correlation for all individuals, irrespective of whether they are tool users or not. Please also ensure the raw data for this correlation is included in the excel files.

[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

This is a summary of the main concerns:

1) Personality claim: While this finding was the most novel, we found it to be poorly supported by the evidence presented. The two assays used to assess personality essentially only test for exploration activity, since both assays measure search/exploration time (since prey contact time is likely to be dependent on exploration, those ants who explore more will find the prey faster). In order to assess personality, we would expect more than one facet of personality to be measured, such as sociability, aggression etc. (see Udino et al., 2017). Such an approach would warrant reference to personality in this manuscript, and be much more convincing.

We have clear evidence that the two personality assays do not test both for exploratory activity since it is not true that those ants who find the prey faster spend more time in contact with the prey. Under your hypothesis, we would expect that the shorter the latency to find the prey, the longer should be the contact time, i.e. a negative correlation between latency to find the prey and contact time with the prey. We had the data about latency to find the prey, so we could test these correlations. When we analyze the behavior of tool users, there is no significant correlation between latency and contact in both repeats (test 1: r_s = 0.153, p = 0.259; test 2: r_s = 0.201, p = 0.136, N = 56); when we analyze the non-tool users, there is a positive correlation (test 1: r_s = 0.363, p = 0.0002; test 2: r_s = 0.569, p = 0.001, N = 98). Therefore, we never find a correlation in the direction expected under your hypothesis. Indeed, many ants found the prey very quickly but did not show interest in it. We believe that the time spent in contact with the prey measures the interest of the ant for the prey (i.e. the motivation to bring the prey to the nest) and not the simple exploratory behavior. We did not add these data to the manuscript, but we are happy to include them if you judge it necessary.

Concerning the second point, we agree that personality has several facets and we have investigated that in a different study (Udino et al., 2017). However, for this study we believe that the two facets that we considered are sufficient and we now include a new analysis showing that there is consistency also across contexts (see reply to reviewer 3). It should be noted that the majority of the vertebrate literature considers only one trait: exploratory behavior as predictor of an individual’s personality, see for instance one of the most well-known papers in this field (more than 800 citations, google scholar) Dingemanse et al. Fitness consequences of avian personalities in a fluctuating environment. Proc R Soc B (2004). This is because exploratory tendency is often part of a behavioral syndrome including aggressiveness, neophilia, and boldness (e.g., Sih et al. Behavioural syndromes: An ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol (2004)). Describing a behavioral syndrome in these ants was beyond the scope of our study.

2) Tool-use assay: Related to the previous point, the fact that the experimental assay is also in itself an exploration assay is problematic. Without controlling for discovery or tool encounter rates, the finding can simply be explained as "those ants which are more likely to explore more are more likely to use tools". Given this confound, linking tool use to any aspect of personality is problematic.

We are grateful for this comment because it forced us to analyze new data and made our study much more convincing. Tool users are not simply those ants that explore more, and thus are more likely to find the tools and the food first. We have now quantified this.

– In Experiment 1, we show that on average of about 11 workers contacted the food and the tool before the first tool user started using tools. Moreover, the first tool user was never the first worker having information about the food and the tools (see Table 3).

– In Experiment 2, we compared our data with randomized data (as suggested by reviewer 2) and we show that the observed average number of workers using tools 8.25 (CI_95% [6.47, 10.03]) is lower than the average number of tool users obtained by randomly assigning the same number of observed tool use events to a simulated ant population 10.2 (CI_95% [10.18, 10.22]). Therefore, the individual distribution of tool use events was not random in our experiments.

– In Experiment 3, we re-analyzed a subset of trials and we show that only in 5 out of 21 trials the tool user was the first worker to investigate the tools. On average, about 5 workers contacted the tools before the first tool user but did not pick them up.

More details are given in our reply to the reviewers.

3) Lack of clear hypotheses being presented: There is no mention of null hypotheses and predictions for the different experiments, which makes it difficult to assess results. Moreover, alternative hypotheses have not been sufficiently addressed in the manuscript (see detailed reviewer reports for more information).

We have clarified our hypothesis and predictions (see also reply to the reviewers).

4) The statistical analyses need improvement: This includes revising models where critical random or control effects appear to have been left out to ensure results are robust, adding effect sizes for all main results as well as other concerns (see reviewer reports). The authors should also include full code for all analyses rather than only the model specifications.

We have reanalyzed the data as suggested by the reviewers (see reply to reviewers for details) and the results did not change. Therefore, our results are robust. We had included the colony (or sub-colony) identity as a random factor, but this was not clear probably because it was written at the end of the Materials and methods section.

We now include the full codes and model outputs for all the analysis (Supplementary file 1) using the template suggested by reviewer 2.

5) Additional concerns regarding the contextualization of the manuscript, clarity of the Materials and methods and reporting of results were brought up and can be found in the detailed reviewer reports below.

We have followed all the suggestions and we modified the Introduction and Discussion. We also clarified the Materials and methods and reported more details about the results.

Reviewer #1:

The author's present an excellent set of experiments investigating task partitioning and specialization in one species of ants that are well known for using tools to transport food. The novel aspect of this manuscript specifically tests whether individual personality characteristics are associated with tool-use propensity, which if I understand correctly, goes beyond the usual colony approach to such questions. Overall I found the paper well written, the experiments clearly described and well designed, and the results easy to understand. The paper is likely to be of interest to a wide range of animal behavioural ecologists and I think warrants publication in eLife. However, I do have a couple major concerns that would need to be addressed in a revision.

1) The Introduction is generally well written but there is a lack of integration for introducing the experiments and aims of the study. The paragraph that begins “ We performed three different experiments to study the tool use behaviour…” needs to be more detailed rather than simply outlining each experiment. Can the authors include more about the overall hypotheses of the study and the predictions for the experiments? What is the aim of each experiment with respect to your overall research questions? This will also better prepare the reader for what and why particular analyses will be done for each experiment.

Essentially I think the authors can do a much better job to present the results of their experiments in a more unified and compelling way with respect to specific research questions and hypotheses.

2) The above issue, of the experiments being presented distinct and separate rather than contributing to an overall research goal needs improvement also in the Discussion. In fact parts of the Discussion would be better suited (and would be very helpful) in the Introduction. For example theoretical framing and predictions. The first two paragraphs are highly repetitive of the results but around the middle of paragraph three this improves considerably. Rather, it would be nice for the Discussion to start by briefly summarize findings across experiments with their relative contribution to the goals/hypotheses of the study.

We re-wrote parts of the Introduction, which now includes the theoretical framing and predictions, as suggested. We have clarified the aims of each experiment and linked them to the overall hypotheses. We have substantially modified the Discussion as suggested and we removed repetitive elements.

3) My last concern includes missing random or control fixed effects in some of the mixed models used in the statistical analysis. I outline these below in detail but essentially without controlling for this additional substructure in the data the authors run the risk of producing erroneous results. Please have a look at the statistical suggestions and modify and re-run the relevant models where necessary.

Thank you. We followed the suggestions.

Reviewer #2:

This study asks an interesting and timely question ("which individual ants perform tool use, and is tool use a personality trait?"). The experiments are performed carefully. The writing is clear. The Introduction introduces the topic well. The full data are provided in a clear manner, which is fantastic. However, I have several concerns about the conclusions drawn from the data. Firstly, some of the results on which conclusions are based are not compared against a null expectation. Secondly, and most critically, the “tool use” personality assay may not reflect anything more than tool discovery, and may thus conceptually identical to the exploration assay. The Discussion is somewhat unfocussed. In terms of subjective interest, I judge the results of experiments 1 and 2 to be not exciting enough for eLife. The conclusions arising from experiment 3 are exciting, but may not be supported by the data. Addressing my major concerns may require more video and statistical analysis, but will not require new experiments to be performed.

1) "Only a small number of workers performed tool use" this is technically true, but throughout the manuscript there is the implication that the tool users are in some way special (Results: "only a few workers performed the tool use behaviour"). The “null model” here would be that any ant with sufficient information has the same probability of performing tool use. Specifically, an ant must encounter both the tools and the food to perform tool use. As the results presented show, once tool use starts, almost all the tools are “used up” by one or two individuals very quickly, not giving other ants a chance to perform tool use, even if they could. The proportion of ants performing tool use is given. To put this in context, we need to know the proportion of ants which encountered tools and food at all. This “null hypothesis” needs to be explicitly presented, and refuted or not, given the data.

We tested the hypothesis that “any ant with sufficient information has the same probability of performing tool use” by reanalysing the videos and checking whether the tool users were the first workers to obtain information about the location of both the food and the tools in Experiment 1. We found that an average of 11.35 ± 6.49 workers (mean ± SE; min = 3, max = 33 workers), contacted the food and the tools before the first tool user dropped the first tool into bait (see Table 3 for further details). These support the conclusion that only a few workers perform the tool use behaviour. Further evidence is given below.

2) All the results presented in paragraph five are given without context of a null model, and are thus meaningless. I.e., if you randomly distributed the same number of transport events and tool use events over the same number of individuals and trials, would you get similar proportions? The empirical results can be compared to randomised data in order to clarify whether these results represent more than probabilistic behaviour amongst homogenous ants.

We compared our empirical results to randomised data. The observed average number of individuals per sub-colony showing tool use was 8.25 (CI [6.47, 10.03]). This was notably lower than 10.2 (CI [10.18, 10.22]), which is the average number of tool users obtained by randomly assigning the same number of observed tool use events to a simulated ant population based on the same number of individuals, sub-colonies, and trials, and the confidence intervals do not overlap. This indicates that the individual distribution of tool use events was not random in our experiments and therefore our results represent more than probabilistic behaviour among homogeneous ants. Moreover, the occurrences of tool use were repeatable at the individual level (R_ICC = 0.218, p < 0.001).

3) "The consecutive transport of several tools within one trial enhanced the efficiency of a tool using worker." This is interpretation, not results, and alternative null hypotheses are not excluded. It could be that when an ant “feels” like being efficient, it transports many tools and does so quickly. In other words, the “second tool” group (Figure 1B) may contain both slow ants which only manage 2 trips, and fast ants which manage 4. The “fourth tool” group only contains ants which manage at least 4 trips. Moreover, and more critically, it makes simple sense that when an ant works faster, it can manage more tools in a given time. To truly demonstrate improvement over time, only ants which manage 4 transport events should be considered, and the rank of the transport event used to predict transport speed. This may or may not have been done, the description of the analysis was not clear. The raw data is not separated by individual ant ID, so I could not check this myself.

We agree with the reviewer and we have redone the analysis by including only those ants that performed 4 consecutive transports. Indeed, the majority of ants in the previous dataset transported 4 tools (18 individuals out of 21, 54 vs. 60 tool transports). The results were similar to the previous ones: within trial, the time to transport one tool decreased with the number of tools transported (second-third tool: LMM t = -2.25, N = 54, p = 0.03, secondfourth tool: t = -3.75, p < 0.001). However, the average time to transport one tool did not change significantly between different trials (first-second: t = -0.015, N = 29, p = 0.99; first-third t = 1.02, p = 0.32).

We have provided the individual ant ID in the raw data.

4) The effect size of the key finding is not given. Examining the data, the normalized personality score ranges from -4 to 3 – so 7 in total. The non-tool users have an average score of -0.33. The tool users have a mean score of 0.57. I managed to recreate the analysis, and found an effect estimate of 0.6174. Using emmeans, we get a prob estimate of 0.349. This means that while the effect is highly significant, I would not say the effect size is very large.

We now give the full output of the models (Supplementary file 1). The

CI_95% of the personality score of tool users (mean = 0.57, CI [0.26, 0.88]) and non-tool users (mean = -0.33, CI [-0.56, -0.09]) does not overlap. Even if the effect size is not extremely large, we believe that our results show a clear division of personality scores between the two groups. This is also evident from the new Figure 5C, which we plotted as the reviewer suggested.

5) I am not convinced that the “tool use” assay in experiment 3 is showing anything more than tool and food discovery probability. It stands to reason that ants which spend more time in the centre of the arena and less time on the periphery (the main components of the personality score) are more likely to encounter both the tools and the food first, and thus be in a position to being doing tool use, perhaps using up all the tools before the other workers found them, but definitely reducing the probability of other workers finding the tools (as fewer tools remain). The authors need to demonstrate that ants with a higher personality score are more likely to perform tool use even when controlling for opportunity. Otherwise, the seemingly interesting results boil down to "ants which spend more time in the centre of the arena are more likely to find things in the centre of the arena", which is not a very exciting result.

We give several lines of evidence that engaging in tool use is not simply the consequence of encountering the tools. From Experiments 1 and 2 (see above) our new analyses show that tool use is not a random process performed by those workers who were the first to obtain the information about the location of the food and the tools. We also obtained new data from the videos of Experiment 3. Our results point in the direction that being more explorative is not enough for a worker to become a tool user. First, it should be noticed that the tool use process did not start immediately after the tools and the food were offered to the ants. The latency to bring the first tool to the bait was 894.71 ± 153.49 seconds (mean ± SE, N = 21 trials), which gives plenty of time for all the ants to explore and find the tools. From a total of 21 trials, only in 5 occasions the tool user was the first worker to investigate the tools. In the majority of the trials (16 out of 21) an average of about five workers investigated the tools by antennation before the first tool user but did not pick them up (4.94 ± 0.52 (mean ± SE) workers, min = 1 worker, max = 8 workers). This indicates that tool use behaviour is not merely prompted by the fact of finding the tools before other workers. As for the personality traits, we clarified that the time spent in contact with the prey is not merely linked to the exploratory activity (see our reply to the first Editors’ concern) and that the ant behaviour is consistent across contexts (see reply to reviewer 3). Moreover, tool use is repeatable at the individual level (data Experiment 2). Therefore, we believe that the relationship between tool use and personality is genuine and informative.

Reviewer #3:

In this manuscript, the authors perform three experiments of Aphaenogaster senilis using tools (e.g. debris) to soak up a liquid food resource to be carried to their nest. The primary conclusion is that a small subset of workers uses these tools, and they do so because of specific personality traits. I found the study to be quite interesting and the paper to be well-written. The authors have strong support for most of their conclusions, and indeed for the first part of their main conclusion, that only a small subset of workers perform the task, but I am less confident in the authors' evidence for the second part of that main conclusion, that these differences are due to specific personality traits.

My primary concern is in how the authors measured personality traits in workers. They performed each of two tests on two occasions: an open field test and test in which individuals could interact with prey. They found that certain behavioral traits (e.g. time spent in central arena in open field and time spent interacting with prey) were significant repeatable across the two timepoints, and conclude that these are personality traits. They then use a PCA to show that these behavioral traits correlate with tool use (ants that explored more were more likely to use tools). This consistency over time is necessary for personality, but as far as I can tell the authors did not test whether these behaviors were consistent across contexts, which is also important (I might also prefer to see more than 2 timepoints tested, though this is a minor concern). So there is a behavioral trait that is correlated across time but not contexts; I do not find this to be rigorous evidence of personality. In addition to the possibility of it being "personality" driving tool use, a non-mutually-exclusive possibility is that ants who explore more are more likely to find the tools sooner, thus becoming the tool-users, which I'm glad that the authors also discuss as a likely explanation.

I must admit that I am generally a little sceptical of the special attention sometimes placed on the idea of animal personality. To me, it is not inherently more interesting if tool use is due to a behavioral trait that is or is not consistent across contexts. Indeed, I would find the study just as interesting if the authors did not discuss personality, per se (though it is possible this would make it less broadly appealing). And I think the conclusion would be better supported and more compelling.

Other than this concern related to personality, I found the conclusions to be generally well supported. I thought it was interesting that workers improve in tool-use performance within but not across trials, and I think the authors suggestion that this relates to route-learning is a good one.

We would like to thank the reviewer for the general appreciation of our work and for the helpful comments. We formally tested the correlation between the variables collected in the exploratory behaviour assay and the reaction to prey assay and we show that they are correlated. The time spent in contact with the prey was negatively correlated with the time spent walking in the periphery (r_s = -0.3, N = 154, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with the total time spent in the central area (r_s = 0.33, N = 154, p < 0.001), indicating that the more exploratory ants were also those more interested in the prey. This shows that there is consistency across contexts. Therefore, we believe that we can talk about personality traits.

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

Revisions:

The reviewers were all very content with the revised submission and congratulate the authors on substantially improving the manuscript by seriously taking into account our initial feedback. We had only a handful of major comments left that should be addressed before publication.

1) Please explain why exploring the periphery of the plate in your open field test would not in fact be ants that are the most exploratory and how this affects your inference about tool users being more explorative. Those ants who explore only in the center could actually be argued to be less explorative. Perhaps this trait needs rephrasing?

The open-field test is a common measure of exploratory behavior and anxiety in rodents (e.g., Prut and Belzung, 2003). The test used in our study is an adaptation of the classical open-field test. We use it to quantify exploratory activity, namely the tendency of an individual ant to thoroughly explore a novel environment. We found that this behavior is usually significantly repeatable in ants at the individual level. We used our ant open-field test in other studies, involving different ant species, to tackle different research questions. For instance, learning performance (Udino et al., 2017), cognitive judgment bias (d’Ettorre et al., 2017), individual behavioral type, and group performance (Carere et al., 2018), all cited in our manuscript. In this last study, we found that individual exploratory activity in an open-field arena was associated with the performance at the group level in cocoon recovery, thus suggesting a linear link between individual and collective behavior.

In contrast to individual ants that spend more time in the central area, ants that preferentially walk along the periphery of the open-field arena are typically looking for protection (walls) and perhaps for the possibility to escape. These ants cross the central area rapidly and therefore do not thoroughly explore the novel environment. Their possible motivation to explore is affected by their “fear” of the novel environment (please note that I use anthropomorphism here, only in order to make the picture clearer). We might even interpret this as an indication of “anxiety” in ants, analogous to rodents, but we do not (yet) dare to do so. It is also very incautious to use words such as “stress” referred to ants, but the concept is similar. Some ants are more “stressed” than others in the novel environment, therefore they explore less and spend more time at the periphery, where it is safer to walk. It is not judicious to use this phrasing in the manuscript. To be able to openly use such wording for ants (anxiety, stress, etc.), several years of research are still needed.

In the present case, A. senilis ants that spend more time in the central area were typically less “stressed/anxious” and showed a slow and detailed exploration of the open-field arena. These “bolder” and more explorative ants did not explore only in the center. Typically, they spent some time walking in the periphery as well, and thus exploring also this part of the arena. The so-called less explorative ants, instead, spent most of their time repeatedly walking along the edges at the periphery. Such individual differences between ants (i.e. being more explorative and “curious” towards novel objects/environments) may play a key role in relation to tool use. More explorative ants will find and approach novel tools easily, which -in turn- may result in a higher probability of using tools than less explorative ants.

We added a short explanation about the open-field in the Material and Methods:

“Open-field. This is an adaptation of the classical open-field test developed to test exploratory behaviour and anxiety in rodents (e.g., Prut and Belzung, 2003) and already used with ants (d’Ettorre et al., 2017; Udino et al., 2017; Carere et al., 2018). An ant was individually placed in an acclimatization tube (Ø 2.7 cm) for 1 min at the centre of a circular arena (Ø 11.5 cm) with a floor of clean filter paper (replaced after each trial), in which an area of 9.5 cm diameter was considered as the central zone and the external part as the periphery (Figure 3A). Then, the tube was removed and the behaviour of the ant was observed for 3 min. More exploratory ants are expected to spend more time in the central area, while less exploratory ants will spend more time walking along the edges of the arena, where they are protected by the walls.”

2) Can you strengthen the claim that tool users are the same individuals across trials (i.e., repeatability across trials) or at least make this more clear and transparent? A corollary of the personality-tool use conclusion is that you should have more individuals repeating tool use across multiple trials than expected by chance. This should mean that the same ants use tools over and over again. We are convinced that this is true at least within a trial, but do we see it across trials, as we should? The authors say that we do and provide evidence from experiment 1, in Table 2, and from experiment 2. However the evidence for experiments 1 is weak if we are interpreting Table 2 correctly, in total for the 3 colonies they saw only 2 ants transport tools to the bait in multiple trials (out of 19 marked tool users), and only 3 ants transport tools to the nest in multiple trials (out of 17 marker tool users). Is this actually more than would be expected by chance?

Indeed, experiment 3 provides the best evidence of personality predicting tool use across trials but given the low absolute numbers in repeat tool users across trials for Experiments 1 and 2 we would like the authors to discuss this aspect more critically in the manuscript.

We understand the concerns of the reviewers but we do not fully agree with the above.

We believe that both Experiments 2 and 3 provide multiple and convincing evidence of repeated tool use by the same individuals across multiple trials. Experiment 2 was indeed designed to test the occurrence of repeated tool use within and across trials. We found that 33.3% of the tool using workers participated in more than one consecutive trial: “Of the 99 tool users in total, 64.7% performed repeated tool transports within the same trial and 33.3% participated repeatedly in more than one trial (Table 4). The majority of these ants (26 over 31 workers) participated in 2 trials (2.89 ± 0.42 per trial, mean ± SE), 3 workers participated in 3 trials and 2 workers in 4 trials (Table 5).” This percentage is even higher if we consider the final trial with 20 tools. In this trial, performed after one week, more than 50% of the workers showed repeated tool use across trials: “Half of the workers (50.38%) that performed tool use in the final trial with 20 tools, also participated in at least one of the previous trials with 10 tools (Table 6), thus confirming that the same ants use tools over and over again, including across trials.” In Experiment 2, we showed statistically that tool use is repeatable across trials at individual level, as stated in the previous version of the manuscript: “The occurrences of tool use were repeatable at the individual level (R_ICC = 0.218, p = 0.001).” The formulation of this statement was not incisive, we changed this sentence as follows: “It is important to note that the occurrences of tool use were repeatable across trials at the individual level (R_ICC= 0.22, N = 1880, p = 0.001).” We also specified “across trials” in the corresponding sentence in the Discussion: “Moreover, tool use was a significantly repeatable behaviour across trials at the individual level.”

Repeated tool use across trials is further supported by the findings of Experiment 3, where 66.6% of workers used tools repeatedly across trials, despite the fact that they had the chance to do so only once, in the final trial with 20 tools: “In the final trial with 20 tools, a total of 18 workers used tools. Of these, 12 workers (66.6%) previously performed tool transport and they brought 106 (66.25%) of the 160 tools that were transported to the bait in this last trial. Of the 34 workers removed during the first 3 days of the experiment, 11 resumed tool using in this last trial, and 4 of these workers were active during the first trial with 10 tools seven days earlier.”

Now, to address the specific criticism (the evidence for experiments 1 is weak): Experiment 1 was an exploratory experiment in which we observed entire colonies where workers were not all individually marked. These ants have spines on the thorax and the paintmark goes away easily. Because of the presence of the spines, other methods for marking ants are difficult to use. Marking with numbers/plates on the gaster (abdomen), instead of the thorax, is not optimal since it may impede movements, particularly in this ant genus. Aphaenogaster (meaning: not showing the abdomen, from Greek: a, α privative + phaino, appearing/shining/coming to view + gaster, abdomen) is very different from Camponotus or Formica, or even Temnothorax, where the marking is relatively easy, also when applied on the top of the gaster. Therefore, we had to do the best of a bad job concerning individual marking in A. senilis. We will improve in this technical endeavor.

Contrary to Experiments 2 and 3, Experiment 1 intended to characterize the ant behavior during the two parts of the tool use process and to study the possible relationship between the number of workers using tools and the number of foragers in the arena. Observing repeated participation of the workers in the tool use process was accessory because the paint mark of the individual workers could be removed by self- and allo-grooming (as explained above). The fading of the paint marks contributed to the low number of repeated observations of tool use across trials (see Table 2). The reviewers rightly ask whether the values observed in relation to the repeated tool transport performed by the same workers across trials are higher than what would be expected by chance (by chance: 4.22). This answer is no, because these observations in Experiment 1 were affected by the fading of our pant marking. However, Table 2 was probably not easy to read, and it has been misinterpreted. In Experiment 1, there was a total of 16 marked tool users transporting tools to the bait (Table 2, column 4), and no tool users were observed to transport tools inside the nest multiple times. The number of ants transporting tools to the nest across multiple trials was confounded with the number of tool users that transported more than one tool to the nest within a single trial (column 8). We slightly modified the headings in the table to improve clarity.

3) Perhaps related to the above point, some of the results should be discussed with more transparency and caution. Specifically, can you acknowledge that effect sizes are small for the personality results and add why this small effect is still important. Please also address in the manuscript that your results for a lack of task partitioning are still not conclusive (due to the low number of ants that complete both parts of the tool use task, i.e. Table 2) and ideally requires further research.

We agree with the reviewers that Results should always be discussed with transparency and we would like to emphasize that any ambiguity that may appear in the manuscript is unintentional. We refer to the small effect sizes and their importance in the Discussion: “Despite we found relatively small effect sizes in the analysis of the personality data, our results reveal the importance of even slight individual differences in behavioural traits, if they are consistent, in the organization of social life.” We also addressed the lack of conclusive evidence regarding task partitioning in tool use and stated that this requires further research: “Therefore, as we predicted, there was no clear evidence of task partitioning. Nevertheless, our results regarding the lack of task partitioning are not conclusive due to the relatively small total number of ants that were observed participating in both parts of tool use process. To the best of our knowledge, the observations reported in the literature also lack conclusive evidence. In A. rudis, similarly to A. senilis, no evidence of task partitioning was found (Banschbach et al., 2006), although task partitioning was suggested in earlier observations of A. famelica (Tanaka and Ono, 1978). This suggests that this behavioural aspect might be species-specific but ideally requires further research.”

4) Please add the latency to find prey and contact time correlation that was in the revisions letter to the reviewers but was not added to the manuscript. It would also be important to provide the correlation for all individuals, irrespective of whether they are tool users or not. Please also ensure the raw data for this correlation is included in the excel files.

The required information was added to the manuscript: “If this would be the case, in the reaction to prey test we should expect a negative correlation between the latency to find prey and the time spent in contact with it (the shorter latency, the longer contact time). In contrast, we found a positive correlation between the latency to find the prey and the time spent in contact with the prey: the longer the latency, the longer the time spent with the prey (session 1: r_s = 0.27, N = 154, p < 0.001; session 2: r_s = 0.42, p < 0.001).”

The description of the analysis was also added to the Materials and methods section (Statistical analysis): “The correlation between the latency to find the prey and the time spent in contact with the prey measured during the reaction to prey test (separately for the two sessions) was performed with Spearman rank test (data not normally distributed)”. The data were included in the excel file.

Author details

1. István Maák

   1. Department of Ecology, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
   2. Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science, Warsaw, Poland

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0999-4916

2. Garyk Roelandt

   Laboratory of Experimental and Comparative Ethology UR 4443, University Sorbonne Paris Nord, Villetaneuse, France

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Patrizia d'Ettorre

   1. Laboratory of Experimental and Comparative Ethology UR 4443, University Sorbonne Paris Nord, Villetaneuse, France
   2. Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   d-ettorre@univ-paris13.fr

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8712-5719

• 2,689

  Page views

• 175

  Downloads

• 13

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.