Oecologia

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 405–412 | Cite as

Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species

  • Kathleen G. Human
  • Deborah M. Gordon
Community Ecology Original Paper

Abstract

Interactions between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species were studied in a 450-ha biological reserve in northern California. Along the edges of the invasion, the presence of Argentine ants significantly reduced the foraging success of native ant species, and vice versa. Argentine ants were consistently better than native ants at exploiting food sources: Argentine ants found and recruited to bait more consistently and in higher numbers than native ant species, and they foraged for longer periods throughout the day. Native ants and Argentine ants frequently fought when they recruited to the same bait, and native ant species were displaced from bait during 60% of these encounters. In introduction experiments, Argentine ants interfered with the foraging of native ant species, and prevented the establishment of new colonies of native ant species by preying upon winged native ant queens. The Argentine ants' range within the preserve expanded by 12 ha between May 1993 and May 1994, and 13 between September 1993 and September 1994, with a corresponding reduction of the range of native ant species. Although some native ants persist locally at the edges of the invasion of Argentine ants, most eventually disappear from invaded areas. Both interference and exploitation competition appear to be important in the displacement of native ant species from areas invaded by Argentine ants.

Key words

Exploitation Interference Competition Argentine ant Invasion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen AN, Patel AD (1994) Meat ants as dominant members of Australian ant communities: an experimental test of their influence on the foraging success and forager abundance of other species. Oecologia 98:15–24Google Scholar
  2. Clark DB, Guayasamín C, Pazmiño O, Donoso C, Villacís YPd (1982) The tramp ant Wasmannia auropunctata: autecology and effects on ant diversity and distribution on Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos. Biotropica 14:196–207Google Scholar
  3. Cole FR, Medeiros AC, Loope LL, Zuehlke WW (1992) Effects of the Argentine ant on arthropod fauna of Hawaiian high-elevation shrubland. Ecology 73:1313–1322Google Scholar
  4. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696Google Scholar
  5. Crowell K (1968) Rates of competitive exclusion by the Argentine ant in Bermuda. Ecology 49:551–555Google Scholar
  6. D'Antonio C, Vitousek P (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87Google Scholar
  7. Davidson DW (1985) An experimental study of diffuse competition in harvester ants. Am Nat 125:500–506Google Scholar
  8. De Kock AE (1990) Interactions between the introduced Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr, and two indigenous fynbos ant species. J Entomol Soc S Afr 53:107–108Google Scholar
  9. Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Williamson M (1989) Biological invasions, a gobal perspective. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Erickson JM (1971) The displacement of native ant species by the introduced Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr. Psyche 78:257–266Google Scholar
  12. Fellers JH (1987) Interference and exploitation in a guild of woodland ants. Ecology 68:1466–1478Google Scholar
  13. Foster E (1908) The introduction of Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr) into New Orleans. J Econ Entomol 1:289–293Google Scholar
  14. Gordon DM (in press) The expandable network of ant exploration. Anim Behav 50Google Scholar
  15. Haskins CP, Haskins EF (1965) Pheidole megacephala and Iridomyrmex humilis in Bermuda: equilibrium or slow replacement? Ecology 46:736–740Google Scholar
  16. Haskins CP, Haskins EF (1988) Final observations on Pheidole megacephala and Iridomyrmx humilis in Bermuda. Psyche 95:177–183Google Scholar
  17. Hengeveld R (1988) Mechanisms of biological invasion. J Biogeogr 15:819–828Google Scholar
  18. Holdgate MW (1986) Summary and conclusions, characteristics and consequences of biological invasions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond [Biol] 314:733–742Google Scholar
  19. Holway DA (1995) The distribution of the Argentine and (Linepithema humile) in central California: a twenty year record of invasion. Consev BiolGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones SR, Phillips SA Jr (1990) Resource collecting abilities of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) compared with those of three sympatric Texas ants. Southwest Nat 35:416–422Google Scholar
  21. Lawton JH, Brown KC (1986) The population and community ecology of invading insects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond [Biol] 314:607–617Google Scholar
  22. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:133–137Google Scholar
  23. Lubin YD (1984) Changes in the native fauna of the Galapagos Islands following invasion by the little red fire ant, Wasmannia auropunctata. Biol J Linn Soc 21:229–242Google Scholar
  24. Lynch JF, Balinsky EC, Vail SG (1980) Foraging patterns in three sympatric forest ant species, Prenolepis imparis, Paratrechina melanderi, and Aphaenogaster rudis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ecol Entomol 5:353–371Google Scholar
  25. Medeiros AC, Loope LL, Cole FR (1986) Distribution of ants and their effects on endemic biota of Haleakala and Hawai'i Volcanoes National Parks: a preliminary assessment. Proceedings of the 6th conference in Natural Sciences, Smith CW, (ed) Published by the Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park: 39–51Google Scholar
  26. Mooney HA, Drake JA (1986) Ecology of biological invasions of North American and Hawaii. Springer, New York Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter SD, Savignano DA (1990) Invasion of polygene fire ants decimates native ants and disrupts arthropod community. Ecology 71:2095–2106Google Scholar
  28. Porter SD, Eimeren BV, Gilbert LE (1988) Invasion of red imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): microgeograhy of competitive replacement. Ann Entomol Soc Am 81:913–918Google Scholar
  29. Rosengren R (1986) Competition and coexistence in an insular ant community—a manipulation experiment (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Zool Fenn 23:287–302Google Scholar
  30. Roughgarden J (1983) Competition and theory in community ecology. Am Nat 122:583–601Google Scholar
  31. Savolainen R, Vepsälänen K (1988) A competition hierarchy among boreal ants: impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51:135–155Google Scholar
  32. Schoener T (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. Am Sci 70:586–594Google Scholar
  33. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285Google Scholar
  34. Simberloff D (1981) Community effects of introduced species. In: Nitecki MH (ed) Biotic crises in ecological and evolutionary time. Academic Press, New York, pp 53–81Google Scholar
  35. Simberloff D (1983) Competition theory, hypothesis-testing, and other community ecological buzzwords. Am Nat 122:626–635Google Scholar
  36. Simberloff D (1986) Introduced insects, a biogeographic and systematic perspective. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg, pp 3–26Google Scholar
  37. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Tremper BD (1976) Distribution of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr, in relation to certain native ants of California: ecological, physiological, and behavioral aspects. PhD Thesis, University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  39. Vitousek PM (1986) Biological invasions and ecosystem properties, can species make a difference? In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg, pp 163–178Google Scholar
  40. Ward PS (1987) Distribution of the introduced Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) in natural habitats of the lower Sacramento Valley and its effects on the indigenous ant fauna. Hilgardia 55:1–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen G. Human
    • 1
  • Deborah M. Gordon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations