Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 385–391

Variation in resource size distribution around colonies changes ant–parasitoid interactions

Research Article


The distribution of resources within habitats affects species abundance, richness and composition, but the role of resource distribution in species interactions is rarely studied. In ant communities, changes in resource distribution within habitats may influence behavioral interactions because many ant species are specialized to efficiently harvest a subset of available resources. This study investigates whether interactions between the behaviorally dominant host ant Pheidole diversipilosa and its specialist parasitoid (Phoridae: Apocephalus orthocladus) depend on resource size distribution around the colony. Using in situ foraging arenas to manipulate parasitoid abundance and resource size distribution around colonies, we tested whether variation in resource size distribution allows P. diversipilosa to alter its foraging behavior in ways that lessen the impact of parasitoid attack. P. diversipilosa colonies do not lower the impact of parasitoid attack by increasing the number of workers foraging individually on small and widely dispersed resources. However, the presence of multiple large resources allows colonies to temporarily redistribute soldier ants from resources patrolled by parasitoids to other resources not patrolled by parasitoids, and to maintain soldier abundance at levels found in the absence of parasitoids. These results highlight the importance of placing behavioral interactions within the context of variation in resource distribution.


Ants Parasitoids Resource size distribution Competition 


  1. Adler F.R., LeBrun E.G. and Feener D.H., Jr. 2007. Maintaining diversity in an ant community: Modeling, extending, and testing the dominance-discovery trade-off. Am. Nat. 169: 323-333Google Scholar
  2. Burkhardt J.F. 1998. Individual flexibility and tempo in the ant, Pheidole dentata, the influence of group size. J. Insect Behav. 11: 493-505Google Scholar
  3. Cerda X., Retana J. and Cros S. 1998. Prey size reverses the outcome of interference interactions of scavenger ants. Oikos 82: 99-110Google Scholar
  4. Chase J.M., Leibold M.A., Downing A.L. and Shurin J.B. 2000. The effects of productivity, herbivory, and plant species turnover in grassland food webs. Ecology 81: 2485-2497Google Scholar
  5. Davidson D.W. 1998. Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade-off. Ecol. Entomol. 23: 484-490Google Scholar
  6. Davidson D.W., Inouye R.S. and Brown J.H. 1984. Granivory in a desert ecosystem experimental evidence for indirect facilitation of ants by rodents. Ecology 65: 1780-1786Google Scholar
  7. Deslippe R.J. and Savolainen R. 1994. Role of food supply in structuring a population of Formica ants. J. Anim. Ecol. 63: 756-764Google Scholar
  8. Ernest S.K.M., Brown J.H. and Parmenter R.R. 2000. Rodents, plants, and precipitation: Spatial and temporal dynamics of consumers and resources. Oikos 88: 470-482Google Scholar
  9. Feener D.H., Jr. 1981. Competition between ant species: outcome controlled by parasitic flies. Science 214: 815-817Google Scholar
  10. Feener D.H., Jr. 2000. Is the assembly of ant communities mediated by parasitoids? Oikos 90: 79-88Google Scholar
  11. Feener D.H., Jr. and Brown B.V. 1992. Reduced foraging of Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the presence of parasitic Pseudacteon spp. (Diptera: Phoridae). Entomol. Soc. Am. 85: 80-84Google Scholar
  12. Folgarait P.J. and Gilbert L.E. 1999. Phorid parasitoids affect foraging activity of Solenopsis richteri under different availability of food in Argentina. Ecol. Entomol. 24: 163-173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Formanowicz D.R., Jr. and Bobka M.S. 1989. Predation risk and microhabitat preference: an experimental study of the behavioral responses of prey and predator. Am. Midl. Nat. 121: 379-386Google Scholar
  14. Fraser D.F. and Huntingford F.A. 1986. Feeding and avoiding predation hazard: The behavioral response of the prey. Ethology 73: 56-68Google Scholar
  15. Jacob J. and Brown J.S. 2000. Microhabitat use, giving-up densities and temporal activity as short- and long-term anti-predator behaviors in common voles. Oikos 91: 131-138Google Scholar
  16. Joern A. 2005. Disturbance by fire frequency and bison grazing modulate grasshopper assemblages in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 86: 861-873Google Scholar
  17. Kneitel J.M. and Chase J.M. 2004. Disturbance, predator, and resource interactions alter container community composition. Ecology 85: 2088-2093Google Scholar
  18. LeBrun E.G. 2005. Who is the top dog in ant communities? Resources, parasitoids, and multiple competitive hierarchies. Oecologia 142: 643-652Google Scholar
  19. LeBrun E.G. and Feener D.H., Jr 2002. Linked indirect effects in ant-phorid interactions: impacts on ant assemblage structure. Oecologia 133: 599-607Google Scholar
  20. LeBrun E.G. and Feener D.H., Jr. 2007. When trade-offs interact: balance of terror enforces dominance discovery trade-off in a local ant assemblage. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 58-64Google Scholar
  21. Morehead S.A. and Feener D.H., Jr. 2000. An experimental test of potential host range in the ant parasitoid Apocephalus paraponerae. Ecol. Entomol. 25: 332-340Google Scholar
  22. Morrison L.W. 2000. Mechanisms of Pseudacteon parasitoid (Diptera: Phoridae) effects on exploitative and interference competition in host Solenopsis ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 93: 841-849Google Scholar
  23. Nonacs P. and Dill L.M. 1990. Mortality risk vs. food quality trade-offs in a common currency: ant patch preferences. Ecology 71: 1886-1892Google Scholar
  24. Oksanen J., Blanchet F.G., Kindt R., Legendre P., O’Hara R.B., Simpson G.L., Solymos P., Stevens M.H. and Wagner H. 2007. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 1.17-2.
  25. Orr M.R., Seike S.H., Benson W.W. and Gilbert L.E. 1995. Flies suppress fire ants. Nature 26: 292Google Scholar
  26. Rothley K.D., Schmidtz O.J. and Cohon J.L. 1997. Foraging to balance conflicting demands: Novel insights from grasshoppers under predation risk. Behav. Ecol. 8: 551-559Google Scholar
  27. Sanders N.J. and Gordon D.M. 2003. Resource-dependent interactions and the organization of desert ant communities. Ecology 84: 1024-1031Google Scholar
  28. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry. Freeman, New York. 887 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. SYSTAT. 2004. Systat version 11, Richmond, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Valone T.J. and Kaspari M. 2005. Interactions between granivorous and omnivorous ants in a desert grassland: results from a long-term experiment. Ecol. Entomol. 30: 116-121Google Scholar
  31. Wilkinson E.B. and Feener D.H., Jr. 2007. Habitat complexity modifies ant-parasitoid interactions: implications for community dynamics and the role of disturbance. Oecologia 152: 151-161Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations