, Volume 94, Issue 9, pp 725–731 | Cite as

Biodiversity below ground: probing the subterranean ant fauna of Amazonia

  • Kari T. Ryder Wilkie
  • Amy L. Mertl
  • James F. A. Traniello
Original Paper


Ants are abundant, diverse, and ecologically dominant in tropical forests. Subterranean ants in particular are thought to have a significant environmental impact, although difficulties associated with collecting ants underground and examining their ecology and behavior have limited research. In this paper, we present the results of a study of subterranean ant diversity in Amazonian Ecuador that employs a novel probe to facilitate the discovery of species inhabiting the soil horizon. Forty-seven species of ants in 19 genera, including new and apparently rare species, were collected in probes. Approximately 19% of the species collected at different depths in the soil were unique to probe samples. Analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) results showed that the species composition of ants collected with the probe was significantly different from samples collected using other techniques. Additionally, ANOSIM computations indicated the species assemblage of ants collected 12.5 cm below the surface was significantly different from those found at 25, 37.5, and 50 cm. Ant diversity and species accumulation rates decreased with increasing depth. There were no species unique to the lowest depths, suggesting that subterranean ants may not be distributed deep in the soil in Amazonia due to the high water table. The technique we describe could be used to gain new insights into the distribution and biology of subterranean ant species and other members of the species-rich soil invertebrate macrofauna.


Soil fauna Formicidae Species richness Conservation ALL protocol 



We thank the directors and staff of Tiputini Biodiversity Station; Dr. Gary Alpert for his insights; Brian Henry, Noah Reid, and Scott Appleby for assistance in the field; David Donoso, Pablo Araujo, Paulina Rosero, Van Le, Helen Mary Sheridan, and Winston McDonald for laboratory assistance; Dr. Terry Erwin for kindly providing canopy fogging samples; Dr. John Longino for identifying Wasmannia and Crematogaster specimens; and Stefan Cover for identifying Solenopsis specimens, as well as providing valuable assistance with ant taxonomy and access to the MCZ ant room. Samples were collected and transported under permit number 16-IC-FAU-RSO-MA issued to Kari Ryder and number 017-IC-FA-PNY-MA issued to Amy Mertl by the Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment. The experiments comply with the current laws of the US and Ecuador.


  1. Agosti D, Majer J, Alonso L, Schultz T (eds) (2000) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, p 280Google Scholar
  2. Berghoff SM, Maschwitz U, Linsenmair KE (2003a) Hypogaeic and epigaeic ant diversity on Borneo: evaluation of baited sieve buckets as a study method. Trop Zool (Florence) 16:153–163Google Scholar
  3. Berghoff SM, Maschwitz U, Linsenmair KE (2003b) Influence of the hypogaeic army ant Dorylus (Dichthadia) laevigatus on tropical arthropod communities. Oecologia 135:49–57Google Scholar
  4. Bolton B, Alpert G, Ward P, Naskrecki P (2006) Bolton’s catalogue of ants of the world 1758–2005. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Boswell GP, Britton NF, Franks NR (1998) Habitat fragmentation, percolation theory and the conservation of a keystone species. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 265:1921–1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady SG, Schultz TR, Fisher BL, Ward PS (2006) Evaluating alternative hypotheses for the early evolution and diversification of ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:18172–18177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown BV, Feener DH Jr (1998) Parasitic phorid Flies (Diptera:Phoridae) associated with army ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ecitoninae, Dorylinae) and their conservation biology. Biotropica 30:482–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brühl CA, Gunsalam G, Linsenmair KE (1998) Stratification of ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in a primary rain forest in Sabah, Borneo. J Trop Ecol 14:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chao A, Shen TJ (2003) Program SPADE (species prediction and diversity estimation). Program and user’s guide published at
  10. Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK, Shen TJ (2005) A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecol Lett 8:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke KR (1993) Nonparametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colwell RK (2005) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. User’s guide and application published at:
  13. Delabie JHC, Fowler HG (1995) Soil and litter cryptic ant assemblages of Bahian cocoa plantations. Pedobiologia 39:423–433Google Scholar
  14. Eggleton P (2000) Global patterns of termite diversity. In: Abe T, Bignell D, Higashi M (ed) Termites: evolution, sociality, symbioses, ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 25–54Google Scholar
  15. Erwin TL (1989) Canopy arthropod biodiversity: a chronology of sampling techniques and results. Rev Peru Entomol 32:71–77Google Scholar
  16. Fisher BL, Robertson HG (2002) Comparison and origin of forest and grassland ant assemblages in the high plateau of Madagascar (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Biotropica 34:155–167Google Scholar
  17. Floren A, Biun A, Linsenmair KE (2002) Arboreal ants as key predators in tropical lowland rainforest trees. Oecologia 131:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Folgarait PJ (1998) Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodivers Conserv 7:1221–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fowler HG, Delabie JHC, Moutinho PRS (2000) Hypogaeic and epigaeic ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) assemblages of Atlantic coastal rainforest and dry mature and secondary Amazon forest in Brazil: continuums or communities. Trop Ecol 41:73–80Google Scholar
  20. Gotwald WH Jr (1995) Army ants: the biology of social predation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electronica 4(1):9. Google Scholar
  22. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaspari M, O’Donnell S (2003) High rates of army ant raids in the neotropics and implications for ant colony and community structure. Evol Ecol Res 5:933–939Google Scholar
  24. Kaspari M, Alonso L, O’Donnell S (2000a) Three energy variables predict ant abundance at a geographical scale. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 267:485–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaspari M, O’Donnell S, Kercher JR (2000b) Energy, density, and constraints to species richness: ant assemblages along a productivity gradient. Am Nat 155:280–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper & Row, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  27. Lavelle P, Bignell D, Lepage M, Wolters V, Roger P, Ineson P, Heal OW, Dhillion S (1997) Soil function in a changing world: the role of invertebrate ecosystem engineers. Eur J Soil Biol 33:159–193Google Scholar
  28. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindsey PA, Skinner JD (2001) Ant composition and activity patterns as determined by pitfall trapping and other methods in three habitats in the semi-arid Karoo. J Arid Environ 48:551–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Longino JT, Colwell RK (1997) Biodiversity assessment using structured inventory: capturing the ant fauna of a tropical rain forest. Ecol Appl 7:1263–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacKay WP, Vinson SB (1989) A versatile bait trap for sampling ant populations. Notes Underg 3:14Google Scholar
  32. Moreau CS, Bell CD, Vila R, Archibald SB, Pierce NE (2006) Phylogeny of the ants: diversification in the age of angiosperms. Science 312:101–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Donnell S, Kaspari M, Lattke J (2005) Extraordinary predation by the neotropical army ant Cheliomyrmex andicola: implications for the evolution of the army ant syndrome. Biotropica 37:706–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vasconcelos HL, Vilhena JMS (2006) Species turnover and vertical partitioning of ant assemblages in the Brazilian Amazon: a comparison of forests and savannas. Biotropica 38:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weissflog A, Sternheim E, Dorow WHO, Berghoff S, Maschwitz U (2000) How to study subterranean army ants: a novel method for locating and monitoring field populations of the South East Asian army ant Dorylus (Dichthadia) laevigatus Smith, 1857 (Formicidae, Dorylinae) with observations on their ecology. Insectes Soc 47:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams DJ (1998) Mealybugs of the genera Eumyrmococcus silvestri and Xenococcus silvestri associated with the ant genus Acropyga Roger and a review of the subfamily Rhizoecinae (Hemiptera, Coccoidea, Pseudococcidae). Bull Br Mus Nat Hist Entomol Ser 67(1):1–64Google Scholar
  37. Wilson EO, Holldobler B (2005) The rise of the ants: a phylogenetic and ecological explanation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:7411–7414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yamaguchi T, Hasegawa M (1996) An experiment on ant predation in soil using a new bait trap method. Ecol Res 11:11–16 (Erratum published in Ecological Research 12:109)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yanoviak SP, Kaspari M (2000) Community structure and the habitat templet: ants in tropical forest canopy and litter. Oikos 89:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kari T. Ryder Wilkie
    • 1
  • Amy L. Mertl
    • 1
  • James F. A. Traniello
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations