Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 463–473 | Cite as

Arrival sequence and diet mediate interspecific competition in an ant community

Research Article

Abstract

The arrival sequence of organisms in a habitat and their diet are two factors that are thought to modulate animal performance, affect the outcome of behavioural interactions, and shape communities. In New Zealand, two species that seldom co-occur in field populations are Prolasius advenus and Monomorium antarcticum. Herein we tested the hypotheses that arrival sequence and diet influence the strength of interactions between these two species. These ant species presented asymmetric responses to arrival sequence and diet variations. When arriving first P.advenus displayed increased aggression and M. antarcticum a defensive reaction. Changes in carbohydrate and protein availability modulated colony activity rates of both species. Colonies of M. antarcticum fed on a high carbohydrate and low protein diet displayed higher activity rates than colonies fed on a low carbohydrate and high protein diet. In contrast, control colonies of P. advenus fed on a high carbohydrate and low protein diet displayed lower activity rates than colonies fed on a low carbohydrate and high protein diet. These results indicate that arrival sequence can modulate the agonistic reaction displayed by interacting species in situations of conflict. This work also demonstrates that species adjust activity rates in response to diet, but different species do so differently. Therefore, arrival sequence and diet could explain species mutually exclusive distribution patterns observed in nature.

Keywords

Priority effects Tempo Community assembly Monomorium antarcticum Prolasius advenus 

References

  1. Abrams P.A. 1996. Limits to the similarity of competitors under hierarchical lottery competition. Am. Nat. 148: 211-219Google Scholar
  2. Alford R.A. and Wilbur H.M. 1985. Priority effects in experimental pond communities: competition between Bufo and Rana. Ecology 66: 1097-1105Google Scholar
  3. Blüthgen N., Stork N.E. and Fiedler K. 2004. Bottom-up control and co-occurrence in complex communities: honeydew and nectar determine a rainforest ant mosaic. Oikos 106: 344-358Google Scholar
  4. Brown W.L., Jr. 1958. A review of the ants of New Zealand. Acta Hymenopt. 1: 1-50Google Scholar
  5. Burne A.R. 2012. The sub-lethal and density-dependent effects of an invasive wasp on an endemic ant. PhD-thesis Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  6. Cerdá X., Arnan X. and Retana J. 2013. Is competition a significant hallmark of ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) ecology? Myrmecol. News 18: 131-147Google Scholar
  7. Cerdá X., Retana J. and Cros S. 1997. Thermal disruption of transitive hierarchies in mediterranean ant communities. J. Anim. Ecol. 66: 363-374Google Scholar
  8. Chase J.M. and Myers J.A. 2011. Disentangling the importance of ecological niches from stochastic processes across scales. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366: 2351-2363Google Scholar
  9. Cole B.J. 1983a. Assembly of mangrove ant communities: colonization abilities. J. Anim. Ecol. 52: 349-355Google Scholar
  10. Cole B.J. 1983b. Assembly of mangrove ant communities: patterns of geographical distribution. J. Anim. Ecol. 52: 339-347Google Scholar
  11. Czechowski W. and Markó B. 2005. Competition between Formica cinerea Mayr (Hymenopter: Formicidae) and co-occurring ant species, with species reference to Formica rufa L.: direct and indirect interferences. Pol. J. Ecol. 53: 467-489Google Scholar
  12. Davidson D.W. 1997. The role of resource imbalances in the evolutionary ecology of tropical arboreal ants. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 61: 153-181Google Scholar
  13. Don A.W. and Jones T.H. 1993. The stereochemistry of 3-butyl-5-(5-hexenyl)-pyrrolizidine from populations of Monomorium antarcticum (Smith) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and its possible role as a unique taxonomic character. N. Z. Entomol. 16: 45-48Google Scholar
  14. Don W. 2007. Ants of New Zealand. Otago University Press, Dunedin, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  15. Donald H. and Fenner Jr., D.H. 2000. Is the assembly of ant communities mediated by parasitoids? Oikos 90: 79-88Google Scholar
  16. Dussutour A. and Simpson S.J. 2012. Ant workers die young and colonies collapse when fed a high-protein diet. Proc. R. Soc. B 279: 2402-2408Google Scholar
  17. Duthie C. and Lester P.J. 2013. Reduced densities of the invasive wasp, Vespula vulgaris (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), did not alter the invertebrate community composition of Nothofagus forests in New Zealand. Environ. Entomol. 42: 223-230Google Scholar
  18. Grangier J. and Lester P.J. 2011. A novel interference behaviour: invasive wasps remove ants from resources and drop them from a height. Biol. Lett. 7: 664-667Google Scholar
  19. Grangier J. and Lester P.J. 2012. Behavioral plasticity mediates asymmetric competition between invasive wasps and native ants. Commun. Integ. Biol. 5: 127-129Google Scholar
  20. Gravel D., Guichard F. and Hochberg M.E. 2011. Species coexistence in a variable world. Ecol. Lett. 14: 828-839Google Scholar
  21. Grover C.D., Kay A.D., Monson J.A., Marsh T.C. and Holway D.A. 2007. Linking nutrition and behavioural dominance: carbohydrate scarcity limits aggression and activity in Argentine ants. Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 2951-2957Google Scholar
  22. Højsgaard S., Halekoh U. and Yan J. 2006. The R Package geepack for Generalized Estimating Equations. J. Stat. Softw. 15: 1-11Google Scholar
  23. Hölldobler B. 1979. Territoriality in ants. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 123: 211-218Google Scholar
  24. Jervis M.A., Ellers J. and Harvey J.A. 2008. Resource acquisition, allocation, and utilization in parasitoid reproductive strategies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 53: 361-385Google Scholar
  25. Kardol P., Souza L. and Classen A.T. 2013. Resource availability mediates the importance of priority effects in plant community assembly and ecosystem function. Oikos 122: 84-94Google Scholar
  26. Kay A.D., Shik J.Z., Van Alst A., Miller K.A. and Kaspari M. 2012. Diet composition does not affect ant colony tempo. Funct. Ecol. 26: 317-323Google Scholar
  27. Kay A.D., Zumbusch T., Heinen J.L., Marsh T.C. and Holway D.A. 2010. Nutrition and interference competition have interactive effects on the behavior and performance of Argentine ants. Ecology 91: 57-64Google Scholar
  28. Kohler A., Raubenheimer D. and Nicolson S.W. 2012. Regulation of nutrient intake in nectar-feeding birds: insights from the geometric framework. J. Comp. Physiol. B 182: 603-611Google Scholar
  29. Leonard J.G. and Herbers J.M. 1986. Foraging tempo in two woodland ant species. Anim. Behav. 34: 1172-1181Google Scholar
  30. Louette G. and De Meester L. 2007. Predation and priority effects in experimental zooplankton communities. Oikos 116: 419-426Google Scholar
  31. Miller-Pierce M.R. and Preisser E.L. 2012. Asymmetric priority effects influence the success of invasive forest insects. Ecol. Entomol. 37: 350-358Google Scholar
  32. Moller H. and Tilley J.A.V. 1989. Beech honeydew: seasonal variation and use by wasps, honey bees, and other insects. New Zeal. J. Zool. 16: 289-302Google Scholar
  33. Oster G.F. and Wilson E.O. 1978. Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinheiro J., Bates D., DebRoy S., Sarkar D. and Team R.D.C. 2013. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models.Google Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team. 2012. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2.15.1 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  36. Ridley A.R., Raihani N.J. and Bell M.B.V. 2010. Experimental evidence that sentinel behaviour is affected by risk. Biol. Lett. 6: 445-448Google Scholar
  37. Robinson E., Richardson T., Sendova-Franks A., Feinerman O. and Franks N. 2009. Radio tagging reveals the roles of corpulence, experience and social information in ant decision making. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 627-636Google Scholar
  38. Rowles A.D. and O’Dowd D.J. 2007. Interference competition by Argentine ants displaces native ants: implications for biotic resistance to invasion. Biol. Invasions 9: 73-85Google Scholar
  39. Sagata K. and Lester P.J. 2009. Behavioural plasticity associated with propagule size, resources, and the invasion success of the Argentine ant Linepithema humile. J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 19-27Google Scholar
  40. Sanders N.J. and Gordon D.M. 2000. The effects of interspecific interactions on resource use and behavior in a desert ant. Oecologia 125: 436-443Google Scholar
  41. Sih A., Cote J., Evans M., Fogarty S. and Pruitt J. 2012. Ecological implications of behavioural syndromes. Ecol. Lett. 15: 278-289Google Scholar
  42. Vepsalainen K. and Pisarski B. 1982. Assembly of island ant communities. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 19: 327-335Google Scholar
  43. Victorsson J. 2012. Semi-field experiments investigating facilitation: arrival order decides the interrelationship between two saproxylic beetle species. Ecol. Entomol. 37: 395-401Google Scholar
  44. Wagner N.D., Hillebrand H., Wacker A. and Frost P.C. 2013. Nutritional indicators and their uses in ecology. Ecol. Lett. 16: 535-544Google Scholar
  45. Wang X.H. and Lester P.J. 2004. A preliminary study of the usefulness of morphometric tools for splitting the Monomorium antarcticum (Smith) complex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), New Zealand’s most common native ants. N. Z. Entomol. 27: 103-108Google Scholar
  46. Weslien J., Djupstrom L.B., Schroeder M. and Widenfalk O. 2011. Long-term priority effects among insects and fungi colonizing decaying wood. J. Anim. Ecol. 80: 1155-1162Google Scholar
  47. Wilson E.O. 1974. The soldier of the ant Camponotus (Colobopsis) fraxinicola as a trophic caste. Psyche 81: 182-188Google Scholar
  48. Zhao Z.O., Davies K.A., Brenton-Rule E.C., Grangier J., Gruber M.A.M., Giblin-Davis R.M. and Lester P.J. 2013. Diploscapter formicidae sp. n. (Rhabditida: Diploscapteridae), from the ant Prolasius advenus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in New Zealand. Nematology 15:109-123Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Laboratoire Ecologie des Hydrosystèmes Naturels et Anthropisés, UMR CNRS 5023Université Claude Bernard-Lyon IVilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations