Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 167–174 | Cite as

Characterization of the thermal tolerances of forest ants of New England

Research Article

Abstract

Characterization of thermal tolerances of ants, which are both abundant and important in most terrestrial ecosystems, is needed since thermal constraints can inform how a species may respond to local climatic change. Here we identified the thermal tolerances of 16 common ant species of the Northeastern United States and determined relationships between body size, desiccation, and thermal tolerance among species. We hypothesized that maximum heat tolerances of these species would differ and be related to body size and capacity to resist desiccation. We identified four distinct groups of species belonging to one of three subfamilies, Dolichoderinae, Formicinae, or Myrmicinae, with different maximum thermal tolerances. Group “a” had a mean thermal tolerance of approximately 43°C (±1°C), group “b” had a mean thermal tolerance of 40°C (±1°C), group “c” had a mean thermal tolerance of 38°C (±0°C), and group “d” had a mean thermal tolerance of 36°C (±0°C). Groups “a” and “d” consisted of a single species (in the subfamilies Myrmicinae and Formicinae, respectively), while groups “b” and “c” were a mix of species in the subfamilies Myrmicinae, Formicinae, and Dolichoderinae. In the subfamily Formicinae, thermal tolerance increased with body size and critical water content, a metric of desiccation tolerance. In contrast, in the subfamily Myrmicinae, higher thermal tolerance was correlated with intermediate body size and lower critical water content. These findings suggest that the two dominant subfamilies in Northeastern deciduous forests have different relationships between body size, capacity to tolerate desiccation, and thermal tolerances across species. This variation in thermal tolerance suggests that climatic change may impact species differently.

Keywords

Formicidae Climate change Thermal tolerance Desiccation Body size Water balance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Harvard Forest LTER Research Experience for Undergraduates program for supporting this work (through NSF grant DBI 10-03938). Additional funding was provided by a US DOE PER award (DE-FG02-08ER64510) to Rob Dunn, Aaron Ellison, Nicholas Gotelli, and Nathan Sanders and a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship award to Israel Del Toro. We thank Adam Clark and Marguarete Romero for their laboratory assistance. Additionally we thank Rob Dunn, Aaron Ellison, Nicholas Gotelli, Nathan Sanders, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

  1. Barker J.F. and Barker A. 1980. The relation between body size and resistance to desiccation in 2 species of Zaprionus (Drosophilidae). Ecol. Entomol. 5: 309-314Google Scholar
  2. Barry J.P., Baxter C.H., Sagarin R.D. and Gilman S.E. 1995. Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a California rocky intertidal community. Science 267: 672-675Google Scholar
  3. Brown W.L., Jr. 1953. Revisionary studies in the ant tribe Dacetini. Am. Midl. Nat. 50: 1-137Google Scholar
  4. Cerda 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: 45-55Google Scholar
  5. Chown S.L., Jumbam K.R., Sorensen J.G. and Terblanche J.S. 2009. Phenotypic variance, plasticity and heritability estimates of critical thermal limits depend on methodological context. Funct. Ecol. 23: 133-140Google Scholar
  6. Clémencet J., Cournault L., Odent A. and Doums C. 2010. Worker thermal tolerance in thermophilic ant Cataglyphis cursor (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insect. Soc. 57: 11-15Google Scholar
  7. Culver D.C. and Beattie A.J. 1978. Myrmechory in Viola: dynamics of seed-ant interactions in some West Virginia species. J. Ecol. 66: 53-72Google Scholar
  8. Deutsch C.A., Tewksbury J.J., Huey R.B., Sheldon K.S., Ghalambor C.K., Haak D.C. and Martin P.R. 2008. Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105: 6668-6672Google Scholar
  9. Ellison A.M., Record S., Arguello A. and Gotelli N.J. 2007. Rapid inventory of the ant assemblage in a temperate hardwood forest: species composition and assessment of sampling methods. Environ. Entomol. 36: 766-775Google Scholar
  10. Fellers J.H. 1987. Interference and exploitation in a guild of woodland ants. Ecology 68: 1466-1478Google Scholar
  11. Fisher B.C. and Cover S.P. 2007. Ants of North America: a Guide to the Genera. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Folgarait P.J. 1998. Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodivers. Conserv. 7: 1221-1244Google Scholar
  13. Handel S.N., Fisch S.B. and Schatz G.E. 1981. Ants disperse a majority of herbs in a mesic forest community in New York State. B. Torrey Bot. Club 108: 430-437Google Scholar
  14. Hoffmann A.A. 2010. Physiological climatic limits in Drosophila: patterns and implications. J. Exp. Biol. 213: 870-880Google Scholar
  15. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. Cambridge, MA, Belknap PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones C.G., Lawton J.H. and Shachak M. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69: 373-386Google Scholar
  17. Kaspari M. 1993. Body-size and microclimate use in Neotropical granivorous ants. Oecologia 96: 500-507Google Scholar
  18. Lengyel S., Gove A.D., Latimer A.M., Majer J.D. and Dunn R.R. 2009. Ants sow the seeds of global diversification in flowering plants. PLoS ONE 4:e5480Google Scholar
  19. Lyford W.H. 1963. Importance of ants to brown podzolic soil genesis in New England. Harvard Forest Paper 7: 1-18Google Scholar
  20. Meehl G.A., Stocker T.F., Collins W.D., Friedlingstein P., Gaye A.T., Gregory J.M., Kitoh A., Knutti R., Murphy J.M., Noda A., Raper S.C.B., Watterson I.G., Weaver A.J. and Zhao Z.-C. 2007. Global climate projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon S., Qin D., Manning M., Chen Z., Marquis M., Averyt K.B., Tignor M. and Miller H., Eds), Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press. pp 748-845Google Scholar
  21. Ness J.H. and Morin D.F. 2008. Forest edges and landscape history shape interactions between plants, seed-disperrsing ants and seed predators. Biol. Conserv. 141: 838-847Google Scholar
  22. Nipperess D.A. and Beattie A.J. 2004. Morphological dispersion of Rhytidoponera assemblages: The importance of spatial scale and null model. Ecology 85: 2728-2736Google Scholar
  23. Parmesan C. and Matthews J. 2005. Biological impacts of climate change. In: Principles of Conservation Biology. (Groom M.J., Meffe G.K. and Carroll C.R., Eds), Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland. pp 333-360Google Scholar
  24. Pelini S.L., Boudreau M., McCoy N., Ellison A.M., Gotelli N.J., Sanders N.J. and Dunn R.R. 2011. Effects of short-term warming on low and high latitude forest and communities. Ecosphere 2: art62Google Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team. 2007. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  26. Schilman P.E., Lighton J.R.B. and Holway D.A. 2007. Water balance in the Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) compared with five common native ant species from southern California. Physiol. Entomol. 32: 1-7Google Scholar
  27. Sinervo B., Méndez-de-la-Cruz F., Miles D.B., Heulin B., Bastiaans E., Villagrán-Santa Cruz M., Lara-Resendiz R., Martínez-Méndez N., Calderón-Espinosa M.L., Meza-Lázaro R.N., Gadsden H., Avila L.J., Morando M., De la Riva I.J., Sepulveda P.V., Rocha C.F.D., Ibargüengoytía N., Puntriano C.A., Massot M., Lepetz V., Oksanen T.A., Chapple D.G., Bauer A.M., Branch W.R., Clobert J. and Sites J.W. 2010. Erosion of lizard diversity by climate change and altered thermal niches. Science 328: 894-899Google Scholar
  28. Weber N.A. 1938. The biology of the fungus-growing ants. Part IV. Additional new forms. Part V. The Attini of Bolivia. Rev. Bras. Biol. 9: 154-206Google Scholar
  29. Weiser M.D. and Kaspari M. 2006. Ecological morphospace of New World ants. Ecol. Entomol. 31: 131-142Google Scholar
  30. Wittman S.E., Sanders N.J., Ellison A.M., Jules E.S., Ratchford J.S. and Gotelli N.J. 2010. Species interactions and thermal constraints on ant community structure. Oikos 119: 551-559Google Scholar
  31. Zelikova T.J., Dunn R.R. and Sanders N.J. 2008. Variation in seed dispersal along an elevational gradient in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Acta Oecol. 34: 155-162Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Forest, Harvard UniversityPetershamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Organismal and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  4. 4.Marine Science Institute, University of Texas at AustinPort AransasUSA

Personalised recommendations