Oecologia

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 207–219

Predicting community structure of ground-foraging ant assemblages with Markov models of behavioral dominance

Community ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Although interference competition is a conspicuous component of many animal communities, it is still uncertain whether the competitive ability of a species determines its relative abundance and patterns of association with other species. We used replicated arena tests to quantify behavioral dominance of eight common species of co-occurring ground-foraging ants in the Siskiyou Mountains of southern Oregon. We found that behavior recorded in laboratory assays was an accurate representation of a colony’s ability to monopolize resources in the field. We used interaction frequencies from the behavioral tests to estimate transition probabilities in a simple Markov chain model to predict patterns of relative abundance in a metacommunity that is dominated by behavioral interactions. We also tested whether behavioral interactions between each pair of species could be used to predict patterns of species co-occurrence. We found that the Markov model did not accurately predict patterns of observed relative abundance on either the local or the regional scale. However, we did detect a significant negative correlation at the local scale in which behaviorally dominant species occupied relatively few baits. Pairwise behavioral data also did not predict species co-occurrence in any site. Although interference competition is a conspicuous process in ant communities, our results suggest that it may not contribute much to patterns of relative abundance and species co-occurrence in the system studied here. However, the negative correlation between behavioral dominance and bait occupancy at the local scale suggests that competition–colonization trade-offs may be important in resource acquisition and persistence of behaviorally subordinate species.

Keywords

Competition Formicidae Null models Relative abundance Species co-occurrence 

References

  1. Adler FR, LeBrun EG, Feener DH (2007) Maintaining diversity in an ant community: modeling, extending, and testing the dominance-discovery trade-off. Am Nat 169:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen AN, Patel AD (1994) Meat ants as dominant members of Australian ant communities–an experimental test of their influence on the foraging success and forager abundance of other species. Oecologia 98:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bestelmeyer BT (2000) The trade-off between thermal tolerance and behavioural dominance in a subtropical South American ant community. J Anim Ecol 69:998–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bestelmeyer BT, Agosti D, Alonso LE, Brandao CRF, Brown WL, Delabie JHC, Silvestre R (2000) Field techniques for the study of ground-dwelling ants: an overview, description and evaluation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Blüthgen N, Stork NE (2007) Ant mosaics in a tropical rainforest in Australia and elsewhere: a critical review. Austral Ecol 32:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blüthgen N, Verhaagh M, Goitía W, Jaffé K, Morawetz W, Barthlott W (2000) How plants shape the ant community in the Amazonian rainforest canopy: the key role of extrafloral nectaries and homopteran honeydew. Oecologia 125:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolton B (2003) Synopsis and classification of Formicidae. Mem Am Entomol Inst 71:1–370Google Scholar
  8. Caswell H (2006) Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation, 2nd edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Cerdá X, Retana J, Cros S (1997) Thermal disruption of transitive hierarchies in Mediterranean ant communities. J Anim Ecol 66:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chase JM, Leibold LA (2003) Ecological niches. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesson P, Huntly N (1997) The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am Nat 150:519–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cody ML, Diamond JM (1975) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole BJ (1983) Assembly of mangrove ant communities–patterns of geographical distribution. J Anim Ecol 52:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson DW (1997) The role of resource imbalances in the evolutionary ecology of tropical arboreal ants. Biol J Linn Soc 61:153–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson DW (1998) Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade-off. Ecol Entomol 23:484–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidson DW, Cook S, Snelling R (2004) Liquid feeding performances of ants (Formicidae): ecological and evolutionary implications. Oecologia 139:255–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Díaz S, Cabido M, Casanoves F (1999) Functional implications of trait-environment linkages in plant communities. In: Weiher E, Keddy PA (eds) Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 338–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duralia TE, Reader RJ (1993) Does abundance reflect competitive ability–a field test with three prairie grasses. Oikos 68:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edgington ES (1995) Randomization Tests. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Feener DH (2000) Is the assembly of ant communities mediated by parasitoids? Oikos 90:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fellers JH (1987) Interference and exploitation in a guild of woodland ants. Ecology 68:1466–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibb H, Hochuli D (2004) Removal experiment reveals limited effects of a behaviorally dominant species on ant assemblages. Ecology 85:648–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gotelli NJ (2000) Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81:2606–2621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL (2006) EcoSim: null models software for ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear. http://www.garyentsminger.com/ecosim/ecosim.htm, Jericho, VT 05465
  26. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR (1996) Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffis MR, Jaeger RG (1998) Competition leads to an extinction-prone species of salamander: interspecific territoriality in a metapopulation. Ecology 79:2494–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gurevitch J, Morrow L, Wallace A, Walsh J (1992) A meta-analysis of competition field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanski I (2008) Spatial patterns of coexistence of competing species in patchy habitat. Theor Ecol 1:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heske EJ, Brown JH, Mistry S (1994) Long-term experimental study of a Chihuahuan Desert rodent community: 13 years of competition. Ecology 75:438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hill MF, Witman JD, Caswell H (2004) Markov chain analysis of succession in a rocky subtidal community. Am Nat 164:E46–E61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holway D (1999) Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80:238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Inouye BD (1999) Integrating nested spatial scales: implications for the coexistence of competitors on a patchy resource. J Anim Ecol 68:150–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ives AR (1988) Aggregation and the coexistence of competitors. Ann Zool Fenn 25:75–88Google Scholar
  35. Keddy PA (1990) Competitive hierarchies and centrifugal organization in plant communities. In: Grace J, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic, San Diego, pp 266–290Google Scholar
  36. Keddy PA (1992) Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. J Veg Sci 3:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. King JR, Tschinkel WR (2006) Experimental evidence that the introduced fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, does not competitively suppress co-occurring ants in a disturbed habitat. J Anim Ecol 5:1370–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kohler SL (1992) Competition and the structure of a benthic stream community. Ecol Monogr 62:165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. LeBrun EG (2005) Who is the top dog in ant communities? Resources, parasitoids, and multiple competitive hierarchies. Oecologia 142:643–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. LeBrun EG, Feener DH (2007) When trade-offs interact: balance of terror enforces dominance discovery trade-off in a local ant assemblage. J Anim Ecol 76:58–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leston D (1973) The ant mosaic–tropical tree crops and the limiting of pests and diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 19:311–341Google Scholar
  43. Levine JM, Rees M (2002) Coexistence and relative abundance in annual plant assemblages: the roles of competition and colonization. Am Nat 160:452–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Majer JD (1993) Comparison of the arboreal ant mosaic in Ghana, Brazil, Papua New Guinea and Australia–its structure and influence on arthropod diversity. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Morrison LW (1996) Community organization in a recently assembled fauna: the case of Polynesian ants. Oecologia 107:243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morse DH (1974) Niche breadth as a function of social dominance. Am Nat 108:818–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pacala SW, Rees M (1998) Models suggesting field experiments to test two hypotheses explaining successional diversity. Am Nat 152:729–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palmer TM (2004) Wars of attrition: colony size determines competitive outcomes in a guild of African acacia ants. Anim Behav 68:993–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palmer TM, Young TP, Stanton ML, Wenk E (2000) Short-term dynamics of an acacia ant community in Laikipia, Kenya. Oecologia 123:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parr C, Gibb H (2010) Competition and the role of dominant ants. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 77–96Google Scholar
  51. Parr C, Sinclair B, Andersen A, Gaston K, Chown S (2005) Constraint and competition in assemblages: a cross-continental and modeling approach for ants. Am Nat 165:481–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rabinowitz D, Rapp JK, Dixon PM (1984) Competitive abilities of sparse grass species–means of persistence or cause of abundance. Ecology 65:1144–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Race MS (1982) Competitive displacement and predation between introduced and native mud snails. Oecologia 54:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ratchford JS, Wittman SE, Jules ES, Ellison AM, Gotelli NJ, Sanders NJ (2005) The effects of fire, local environment and time on ant assemblages in fens and forests. Divers Distrib 11:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Roulston TH, Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2003) Nestmate discrimination in ants: effect of bioassay on aggressive behavior. Insect Soc 50:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roxburgh SH, Shea K, Wilson JB (2004) The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology 85:359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Savolainen R, Vepsäläinen K (1988) A competition hierarchy among boreal ants–impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51:135–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Savolainen R, Vepsäläinen K (1989) Niche differentiation of ant species within territories of the wood ant Formica polyctena. Oikos 56:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Silvertown J (2004) Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends Ecol Evol 19:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stanton ML, Palmer TM, Young TP (2002) Competition-colonization trade-offs in a guild of African Acacia-ants. Ecol Monogr 72:347–363Google Scholar
  62. Stone L, Roberts A (1990) The checkerboard score and species distributions. Oecologia 85:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tanner CJ (2008) Aggressive group behaviour in the ant Formica xerophila is coordinated by direct nestmate contact. Anim Behav 76:1335–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tanner CJ, Adler FR (2009) To fight or not to fight: context-dependent interspecific aggression in competing ants. Anim Behav 77:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tilman D (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trewby LD, Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ, Walker N, Young R, Davison J, Cheeseman C, Robertson PA, Gorman ML, McDonald RA (2008) Experimental evidence of competitive release in sympatric carnivores. Biol Lett 4:170–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Waggoner P, Stephens G (1970) Transition probabilities for a forest. Nature 255:1160–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilson E (1971) The insect societies. Belknap, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson JB (1990) Mechanisms of species co-existence: twelve explanations for Hutchinson’s “Paradox of the plankton”: evidence from New Zealand plant communities. N Z J Ecol 13:17–42Google Scholar
  72. Wittman SE (2007) Ant community assembly in the Siskiyou-Klamath ecoregion. PhD dissertation, University of Vermont, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  73. Wittman SE, Sanders NJ, Ellison AM, Jules ES, Ratchford JS, Gotelli NJ (2010) Species interactions and thermal constraints on ant community structure. Oikos 119:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wootton JT (2001) Prediction in complex communities: analysis of empirically derived Markov models. Ecology 82:580–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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 BiologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BotanyLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations