Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 149–156

Temperature-mediated coexistence in temperate forest ant communities

Research Article

Abstract

Patterns of ant species diversity are well documented and yet the mechanisms promoting species coexistence among communities are often elusive. Two emerging hypotheses that account for coexistence in ant communities are the discovery-dominance tradeoff and the dominance-thermal tolerance tradeoff. Here we used behavioural assays and community-level sampling from ant assemblages in the southern Appalachians, USA to test for the discovery-dominance and dominance-thermal tolerance tradeoffs. Species that were behaviorally dominant during interspecific interactions tended to forage in a narrow window of generally warmer temperatures, whereas subordinate species tended to forage in a wide range of temperatures, including colder temperatures. Species that foraged at lower temperature tended to be behaviourally subordinate, suggesting that a dominance-thermal tolerance tradeoff promotes coexistence in this system. Species richness was positively related to site average annual temperature and within-site variation in ground temperature, suggesting that temperature also shapes the structure of ant communities and regulates diversity. There was no relationship between the ability of a species to discover food resources and its behavioural dominance, contrary to the predictions of the discovery-dominance tradeoff hypothesis. In sum, our results show that temperature plays numerous roles in promoting regional coexistence in this system.

Keywords

Coexistence Dominance Temperature Tradeoff Formicidae Coweeta LTER 

References

  1. Adler F.R., LeBrun E.G. and Feener Jr D.H. 2007. Maintaining diversity in an ant community: modelling, extending, and testing the discovery-dominance tradeoff. Am. Nat. 169: 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht M. and Gotelli N.J. 2001. Spatial and temporal niche partitioning in grassland ants. Oecologia 126: 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen A.N. 1992. Regulation of momentary diversity by dominant species in exceptionally rich ant communities of the australian seasonal tropics. Am. Nat. 140: 401–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen A. N. 2008. Not enough niches: non-equilibrial processes promoting species coexistence in diverse ant communities. Aust. Ecol. 33: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein R.A. and Gobbel M. 1979. Partitioning of space in communities of ants. J. Anim. Ecol. 48: 931–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bestelmeyer B.T. 1997. Stress tolerance in some Chacoan dolichoderine ants: Implications for community organization and distribution. J. Ar. Env. 35: 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bestelmeyer B.T. 2000. The trade-off between thermal tolerance and behavioural dominance in a subtropical South American ant community. J. Anim. Ecol 69: 998–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cerdá X., Retana J. and Cros S. 1997. Thermal disruption of transitive hierarchies in Mediterranean ant communities. J Anim. Ecol. 66: 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cerdá X., Retana J. and Cros S. 1998. Critical thermal limits in Mediterranean ant species: trade-off between mortality risk and foraging performance. Funct. Ecol. 12: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cerdá X., Retana J. and Manzaneda A. 1998a. The role of competition by dominants and temperature in the foraging of subordinate species in Mediterranean ant communities. Oecologia 117: 404–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cros S., Cerdá X. and Retana J. 1997. Spatial and temporal variations in the activity patterns of Mediterranean ant communities. Ecoscience 4: 269–278.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson D.W. 1977. Foraging ecology and community organization in desert seed-eating ants. Ecology 58: 725–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson D.W. 1998. Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade-off. Ecol. Ent. 23: 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunn R.R., Parker C.R. and Sanders N.J. 2007. Temporal patterns of diversity: Assessing the biotic and abiotic controls on ant assemblages. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 91: 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feener D. H., Orr M.R., Wackford K.M., Longo J.M., Benson W.W. and Gilbert L.E. 2008. Geographic variation in resource discovery-dominance in Brazilian ant communities. Ecology 89:1824–1836.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fellers J.H. 1987. Interference and exploitation in a guild of woodland ants. Ecology 68: 1466–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fellers J.H. 1989. Daily and seasonal activity in woodland ants. Oecologia 78: 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herbers J.M. 1989. Community structure in north temperate ants - temporal and spatial variation. Oecologia 81: 201–211.Google Scholar
  19. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. Belknap, Cambridge, Mass. 732 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Holway D.A. 1999. Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80: 238–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaspari M., Ward P.S. and Yuan M. 2004. Energy gradients and the geographic distribution of local ant diversity. Oecologia 140: 407–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knoepp J.D. and Swank W.T. 1998. Rates of nitrogen mineralization across an elevation and vegetation gradient in the southern Appalachians. Plant and Soil 204: 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. LeBrun E. and Feener D. 2007. When trade-offs interact: balance of terror enforces dominance discovery trade-off in a local ant assemblage. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 58–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Neill K.M. and Kemp W.P. 1990. Worker response to thermal constraints in the ant Formica obscuripes Hymenoptera, Formicidae. J. Therm. Biol. 15: 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parr C.L., Sinclair B.J., Andersen A.N., Gaston K.J. and Chown S.L. 2005. Constraint and competition in assemblages: A cross-continental and modeling approach for ants. Am. Nat. 165: 481–494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perfecto I. 1994. Foraging behaviour as a determinant of asymmetric competitive interaction between 2 ant species in a tropical agroecosystem. Oecologia 98: 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter S.D. and Savignano D.A. 1990. Invasion of polygyne fire ants decimates native ants and disrupts arthropod community. Ecology 71: 2095–2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanders N.J. and Gordon D.M. 2003. Resource-dependent interactions and the organization of desert ant communities. Ecology 84: 1024–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanders N.J., Gotelli N.J., Heller N.E. and Gordon D.M. 2003. Community disassembly by an invasive species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100: 2474–2477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanders N.J., Lessard J.P., Fitzpatrick M.C. and Dunn R.R. 2007. Temperature, but not productivity or geometry, predicts elevational diversity gradients in ants across spatial grains. Glob. Ecol. Biol. 16: 640–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Santini G., Tucci L., Ottonetti L. and Frizzi F. 2007. Competition trade-offs in the organisation of a Mediterranean ant assemblage. Ecol. Ent. 32: 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Savolainen R. and Vepsalainen K. 1988. A competition hierarchy among boreal ants - impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51: 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swank W.T. and Crossley D.A. 1988. Introduction and site description. In: Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta (W.T. Swank and D.A. Crossley, Eds). Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  34. Swift L., Cunningham G. and Douglas J.E. 1988. Introduction and site description. In: Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta (W.T. Swank and D.A. Crossley, Eds). Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp. 35–55.Google Scholar
  35. Vepsalainen K. and Pisarski B. 1982. Assembly of island ant communities. An. Zool. Fen. 19: 327–335.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson E.O. 1971. The Insect Societies. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass. 548 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Yanoviak S.P. and Kaspari M. 2000. Community structure and the habitat templet: ants in the tropical forest canopy and litter. Oikos 89: 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel/Switzerland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleTNUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations