, Volume 183, Issue 1, pp 249–261 | Cite as

Ant-mediated ecosystem processes are driven by trophic community structure but mainly by the environment

  • Alex Salas-Lopez
  • Houadria Mickal
  • Florian Menzel
  • Jérôme Orivel
Ecosystem ecology – original research


The diversity and functional identity of organisms are known to be relevant to the maintenance of ecosystem processes but can be variable in different environments. Particularly, it is uncertain whether ecosystem processes are driven by complementary effects or by dominant groups of species. We investigated how community structure (i.e., the diversity and relative abundance of biological entities) explains the community-level contribution of Neotropical ant communities to different ecosystem processes in different environments. Ants were attracted with food resources representing six ant-mediated ecosystem processes in four environments: ground and vegetation strata in cropland and forest habitats. The exploitation frequencies of the baits were used to calculate the taxonomic and trophic structures of ant communities and their contribution to ecosystem processes considered individually or in combination (i.e., multifunctionality). We then investigated whether community structure variables could predict ecosystem processes and whether such relationships were affected by the environment. We found that forests presented a greater biodiversity and trophic complementarity and lower dominance than croplands, but this did not affect ecosystem processes. In contrast, trophic complementarity was greater on the ground than on vegetation and was followed by greater resource exploitation levels. Although ant participation in ecosystem processes can be predicted by means of trophic-based indices, we found that variations in community structure and performance in ecosystem processes were best explained by environment. We conclude that determining the extent to which the dominance and complementarity of communities affect ecosystem processes in different environments requires a better understanding of resource availability to different species.


Biodiversity—ecosystem functioning Complementarity Dominance Formicidae Food resources 



We are grateful to all the landholders who kindly allowed sampling to be conducted on their farms and in their gardens, to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and to Andrea Dejean for proof-reading this manuscript. Financial support for this study was provided by a PhD fellowship from the LabEx CEBA (Centre d’Etude de la Biodiversité Amazonienne) and the Fond Social Européen (FSE) to ASL by a ‘‘Investissement d’Avenir’’ grant managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (CEBA, ref. ANR-10- LABX-25-01) and by a grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, ref. ME 3842/1-1).

Author contribution statement

All of the authors conceived the experiment. ASL performed the experiment, and analyzed the data. All of the authors significantly contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2016_3741_MOESM1_ESM.docx (659 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 659 kb)
442_2016_3741_MOESM2_ESM.docx (2.2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 2243 kb)


  1. Aarssen LW (1997) High productivity in grassland ecosystems: effected by species diversity or productive species? Oikos 80:183–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen AN (1992) Regulation of “momentary” diversity by dominant species in exceptionally rich ant communities of the Australian seasonal tropics. Am Nat 140:401–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnan X, Cerdá X, Retana J (2014) Ant functional responses along environmental gradients. J Anim Ecol 83:1398–1408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N et al (2006) Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 9:1146–1156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bihn JH, Verhaagh M, Brandl R (2008) Ecological stoichiometry along a gradient of forest succession: bait preferences of litter ants. Biotropica 40:597–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bílá K, Moretti M, de Bello F et al (2014) Disentangling community functional components in a litter-macrodetritivore model system reveals the predominance of the mass ratio hypothesis. Ecol Evol 4:408–416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Blüthgen N, Fiedler K (2004) Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities. Ecology 85:1479–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandão C, Silva R, Delabie J (2012) Neotropical ants (Hymenoptera) functional groups: nutritional and applied implications. In: Panizzi AR, Parra JRP (eds) Insect bioecology and nutrition for integrated pest management. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 213–236Google Scholar
  9. Cadotte MW, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N (2011) Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J Appl Ecol 48:1079–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE et al (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:989–992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapin FS, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT et al (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook SC, Davidson DW (2006) Nutritional and functional biology of exudate-feeding ants. Entomol Exp Appl 118:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Díaz S, Tilman D, Fargione J et al (2006) Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services. In: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (ed) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Island Press, USA, pp 297–329Google Scholar
  14. Fargione J, Tilman D, Dybzinski R et al (2007) From selection to complementarity: shifts in the causes of biodiversity-productivity relationships in a long-term biodiversity experiment. Proc Biol Sci 274:871–876CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Fayle TM, Bakker L, Cheah C et al (2010) A positive relationship between ant biodiversity (Hymenoptera: formicidae) and rate of scavenger-mediated nutrient redistribution along a disturbance gradient in a southeast asian rain forest. Myrmecological News 14:5–12Google Scholar
  16. Flynn DFB, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T et al (2009) Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol Lett 12:22–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Folgarait PJ (1998) Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodivers Conserv 7:1221–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fowler D, Lessard JP, Sanders NJ (2014) Niche filtering rather than partitioning shapes the structure of temperate forest ant communities. J Anim Ecol 83:943–952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox JW, Vasseur DA (2008) Character convergence under competition for nutritionally essential resources. Am Nat 172:667–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Frainer A, McKie BG, Malmqvist B (2014) When does diversity matter? Species functional diversity and ecosystem functioning across habitats and seasons in a field experiment. J Anim Ecol 83:460–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gamfeldt L, Hillebrand H, Jonsson PR (2008) Multiple functions increase the importance of biodiversity for overall ecosystem functioning. Ecology 89:1223–1231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Garnier E, Cortez J, Billès G et al (2004) Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 85:2630–2637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grime JP (1998) Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects. J Ecol 86:902–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gross K, Cardinale BJ (2007) Does species richness drive community production or vice versa? Reconciling historical and contemporary paradigms in competitive communities. Am Nat 170:207–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hashimoto Y, Morimoto Y, Widodo ES et al (2010) Vertical habitat use and foraging activities of arboreal and ground ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a bornean tropical rainforest. Sociobiology 56:435–448Google Scholar
  26. Hooper DU, Chapin FSIII, Ewel JJ et al (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houadria M, Salas-Lopez A, Bluthgen N et al (2015) Dietary and temporal niche differentiation in species-rich assemblages—can they explain local tropical ant coexistence? Biotropica 47:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Houadria M, Blüthgen N, Salas-Lopez A et al (2016) The relation between circadian asynchrony, functional redundancy and trophic performance in tropical ant communities. Ecology 97:225–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Jax K (2005) Function and “functioning” in ecology: what does it mean? Oikos 111:641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaspari M, Yanoviak SP (2001) Bait use in tropical litter and canopy ants—evidence of differences in nutrient limitation. Biotropica 33:207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaspari M, Donoso D, Lucas JA et al (2012) Using nutritional ecology to predict community structure: a field test in Neotropical ants. Ecosphere 3:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laliberté AE, Legendre P, Shipley B, Laliberté ME (2014) FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1.0-12Google Scholar
  34. Laughlin DC (2011) Nitrification is linked to dominant leaf traits rather than functional diversity. J Ecol 99:1091–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindemayer D, Cunningham S, Young N (eds) (2012) Land use intensification: effects on agriculture, biodiversity and ecological processes, 1st edn. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne and CRC Press, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  36. Maestre FT, Quero JL, Gotelli NJ et al (2012) Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science 335:214–218CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. McGill BJ, Enquist BJ, Weiher E, Westoby M (2006) Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol Evol 21:178–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McKane RB, Johnson LC, Shaver GR et al (2002) Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra. Nature 415:68–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris RJ (2010) Anthropogenic impacts on tropical forest biodiversity: a network structure and ecosystem functioning perspective. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:3709–3718CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Mouillot D, Villéger S, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Mason NWH (2011) Functional structure of biological communities predicts ecosystem multifunctionality. PLoS One 6:e17476CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Needham HR, Pilditch CA, Lohrer AM, Thrush SF (2011) Context-specific bioturbation mediates changes to ecosystem functioning. Ecosystems 14:1096–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oksanen J (2010) Vegan: ecological diversity. Diversity 1:1–14Google Scholar
  43. Petchey OL, Gaston LK (2002) Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition. Ecol Lett 5:402–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peters MK, Mayr A, Röder J et al (2014) Variation in nutrient use in ant assemblages along an extensive elevational gradient on Mt Kilimanjaro. J Biogeogr 41:2245–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Philpott SM, Armbrecht I (2006) Biodiversity in tropical agroforests and the ecological role of ants and ant diversity in predatory function. Ecol Entomol 31:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Philpott SM, Perfecto I, Armbrecht I, Parr CL (2010) Ant diversity and function in disturbed and changing habitats. In: Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, USA, pp 137–156Google Scholar
  47. Poisot T, Mouquet N, Gravel D (2013) Trophic complementarity drives the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationship in food webs. Ecol Lett 16:853–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. R Development Core Team R (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  49. Scherber C, Eisenhauer N, Weisser WW et al (2010) Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468:553–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Šipoš J, Kindlmann P (2013) Effect of the canopy complexity of trees on the rate of predation of insects. J Appl Entomol 137:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turnbull LA, Levine JM, Loreau M, Hector A (2013) Coexistence, niches and biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 16:116–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Wittman SE, Sanders NJ, Ellison AM et al (2010) Species interactions and thermal constraints on ant community structure. Oikos 119:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Salas-Lopez
    • 1
  • Houadria Mickal
    • 2
  • Florian Menzel
    • 2
  • Jérôme Orivel
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRS, UMR Ecologie de Forêts de Guyane, AgroParisTech, CIRAD, INRAUniversité de Guyane, Université des AntillesKourou CedexFrance
  2. 2.Department of Evolutionary Biology, Institute of ZoologyUniversity of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations