, Volume 164, Issue 4, pp 1061–1073 | Cite as

How does habitat complexity affect ant foraging success? A test using functional measures on three continents

Community ecology - Original Paper


Habitat complexity can mediate key processes that structure local assemblages through effects on factors such as competition, predation and foraging behaviour. While most studies address assemblage responses to habitat complexity within one locality, a more global approach allows conclusions with greater independence from the phylogenetic constraints of the target assemblages, thus allowing greater generality. We tested the effects of natural and manipulated habitat complexities on ant assemblages from South Africa, Australia and Sweden, in order to determine if there were globally consistent responses in how functional measures of foraging success are regulated by habitat complexity. Specifically, we considered how habitat complexity affected ant foraging rates including the speed of discovery and rate of monopolisation. We also tested if habitat complexity affected the body size index, a size-related morphological trait, of ants discovering resources and occupying and monopolising the resources after 180 min. Ants were significantly slower to discover baits in the more complex treatments, consistent with predictions that they would move more slowly through more complex environments. The monopolisation index was also lower in the more complex treatments, suggesting that resources were more difficult to defend. Our index of ant body size showed trends in the predicted direction for complexity treatments. In addition, ants discovering, occupying and monopolising resources were smaller in simple than in complex natural habitats. Responses of discovering ants to resources in natural habitats were clear in only one of three regions. Consistent with our predictions, habitat complexity thus affected functional measures of the foraging success of ants in terms of measures of discovery and monopolisation rates and body size traits of successful ants. However, patterns were not always equally clear in manipulative and mensurative components of the study.


Community structure Monopolisation Discovery Microhabitat Experiment 



We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Trapnell Fund, the British Ecological Society and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. We thank T. Retief, M. Wege, V. Ndluvo, R. Thethe and E. Finlay for field work assistance and Å. Nordström for the experimental equipment. We are grateful to D. Warton and A. Haslem for their advice on the statistical analyses and D. Holway for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2010_1703_MOESM1_ESM.doc (114 kb)
(DOC 113 kb)


  1. Andersen AN (2000) A global ecology of rainforest ants: functional groups in relation to environmental stress and disturbance. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR (eds) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 25–34Google Scholar
  2. Andruskiw M, Fryxell JM, Thompson ID, Baker JA (2008) Habitat-mediated variation in predation risk by the American marten. Ecology 89:2273–2280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aviron S, Burel F, Baudry J, Schermann N (2005) Carabid assemblages in agricultural landscapes: impacts of habitat features, landscape context at different spatial scales and farming intensity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton P, Manning AD, Gibb H, Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham SA (2009) Conserving ground-dwelling beetles in an endangered woodland community: multi-scale habitat effects on assemblage diversity. Biol Cons 142:1701–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blüthgen N, Fiedler K (2004) Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities. Ecology 85:1479–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll CR, Janzen DH (1973) Ecology of foraging by ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:231–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cerdá X, Retana J, Manzaneda A (1998) The role of competition by dominants and temperature in the foraging of subordinate species in Mediterranean ant communities. Oecologia 117:404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farji-Brener AG, Barrantes G, Ruggiero A (2004) Environmental rugosity, body size and access to food: a test of the size-grain hypothesis in tropical litter ants. Oikos 104:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fewell JH (1988) Energetic and time costs of foraging in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finke DL, Denno RF (2002) Intraguild predation diminished in complex-structured vegetation: implications for prey suppression. Ecology 83:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibb H (2005) The effect of a dominant ant, Iridomyrmex purpureus, on resource use by ant assemblages depends on microhabitat and resource type. Aust Ecol 30:856–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2004) Removal experiment reveals limited effects of a behaviourally dominant species on ant assemblages. Ecology 85:648–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibb H, Hilszczański J, Hjältén J, Danell K, Ball JP, Pettersson RB, Atlegrim O (2008) Responses of parasitoids to saproxylic hosts and habitat: a multi-scale study using experimental logs. Oecologia 155:63–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gols R, Bukovinszky T, Hemerik L, Harvey JA, Van Lenteren JC, Vet LEM (2005) Reduced foraging efficiency of a parasitoid under habitat complexity: implications for population stability and species coexistence. J Anim Ecol 74:1059–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gray SJ, Jensen SP, Hurst JL (2000) Structural complexity of territories: preference, use of space and defence in commensal house mice, Mus domesticus. Anim Behav 60:765–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hampton SE (2004) Habitat overlap of enemies: temporal patterns and the role of spatial complexity. Oecologia 138:475–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hasegawa K, Maekawa K (2008) Potential of habitat complexity for mitigating interference competition between native and non-native salmonid species. Can J Zool 86:386–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hojesjo J, Johnsson J, Bohlin T (2004) Habitat complexity reduced the growth of aggressive and dominant brown trout Salmo trutta relative to subordinates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:286–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurlbert AH, Ballantyne F, Powell S (2008) Shaking a leg and hot to trot: the effects of body size and temperature on running speed in ants. Ecol Entomol 33:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Institute SAS (2007) JMP version 7. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaspari M (1993) Removal of seeds from neotropical frugivore droppings ant responses to seed number. Oecologia 95:81–88Google Scholar
  23. Kaspari M, Weiser MD (1999) The size-grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants. Funct Ecol 13:530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lassau SA, Hochuli DF (2004) Effects of habitat complexity on ant assemblages. Ecography 27:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LeBrun EG (2005) Who is the top dog in ant communities? Resources, parasitoids, and multiple competitive hierarchies. Oecologia 142:643–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mandelbrot B (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. Morrison LW (1999) Indirect effects of phorid fly parasitoids on the mechanisms of interspecific competition among ants. Oecologia 121:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morse D, Lawton J, Dodson M, Williamson M (1985) Fractal dimension of vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body lengths. Nature 314:731–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Palmer T (2003) Spatial habitat heterogeneity influences competition and coexistence in an African acacia ant guild. Ecology 84:2843–2855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parr CL (2008) Dominant ants can control assemblage species richness in a South African savanna. J Anim Ecol 77:1191–1198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Parr ZJE, Parr CL, Chown SL (2003) The size-grain hypothesis: a phylogenetic and field test. Ecol Entomol 28:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parr CL, Andersen AN, Chastagnol C, Duffaud C (2007) Savanna fires increase rates and distances of seed dispersal by ants. Oecologia 151:33–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Patterson HD, Thompson R (1974) Maximum likelihood estimation of components of variance. Proceedings of eighth international biochemistry conference, pp 197–209Google Scholar
  34. Petren K, Case TJ (1998) Habitat structure determines competition intensity and invasion success in gecko lizards. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:11739–11744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pontin AJ (1969) Experimental transplantation of nest-mounds of the ant Lasius flavus F in a habitat containing also L niger L and Myrmica scabrinodis Nyl. J Anim Ecol 38:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanders NJ, Gordon DM (2003) Resource-dependent interactions and the organization of desert ant communities. Ecology 84:1024–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarty M, Abbott KL, Lester PJ (2006) Habitat complexity facilitates coexistence in a tropical ant community. Oecologia 149:465–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Savolainen R, Vepsalainen K (1988) A competition hierarchy among boreal ants impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51:135–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Savolainen R, Vepsäläinen K, Wuorenrinne H (1989) Ant assemblages in the taiga biome: testing the role of territorial wood ants. Oecologia 81:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE (1992) Variance components. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Srivastava DS (2006) Habitat structure, trophic structure and ecosystem function: interactive effects in a bromeliad-insect community. Oecologia 149:493–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas ML, Holway DA (2005) Condition-specific competition between invasive Argentine ants and Australian Iridomyrmex. J Anim Ecol 74:532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkinson EB, Feener DH (2007) Habitat complexity modifies ant-parasitoid interactions: implications for community dynamics and the role of disturbance. Oecologia 152:151–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams SE, Marsh H, Winter J (2002) Spatial scale, species diversity and habitat structure: small mammals in Australian tropical rainforest. Ecology 83:1317–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolfinger R, Tobias R, Sall J (1994) Computing Gaussian likelihoods and their derivatives for general linear mixed models. SIAM J Sci Comput 15:1294–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yanoviak SP, Kaspari M (2000) Community structure and the habitat templet: ants in the tropical forest canopy and litter. Oikos 89:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO EntomologyCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Animal EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  4. 4.Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations