Advertisement

Oecologia

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Biogeochemistry and forest composition shape nesting patterns of a dominant canopy ant

  • Jelena Bujan
  • S. Joseph Wright
  • Michael Kaspari
Ecosystem ecology – original research
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Humans are increasing nutrient deposition across the globe, and we know little about how these changes influence consumer populations in tropical rainforests. We used a long-term fertilization experiment conducted in a Panamanian forest to explore how nutrient availability and tree traits affect abundance of a higher-level consumer. We added nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in a factorial design for 18 years. Given that phosphorus often limits ecosystem processes in lowland tropical forests, and added nitrogen reduces insect abundance in our experiment, we first hypothesized that phosphorus addition would increase nest density and nest size of Azteca chartifex ants while nitrogen addition would have the opposite effects. We found 48% lower nest density in the canopy of nitrogen addition plots relative to plots that did not receive nitrogen. Phosphorus addition did not affect nest density or size. These nutrient effects were not diminished by the selectivity of host trees. In general, larger trees held more nests, despite their low frequencies across the forest, while some abundant species (e.g., palms) were rarely used. We further predicted higher nest frequency on trees with extrafloral nectaries, because this ant fuels its large colonies with extrafloral nectar. Despite the non-random distribution of A. chartifex nests, across tree species and nutrient treatments, trees with extrafloral nectaries did not host more nests. Our study suggests that areas of a tropical lowland forest which are not oversaturated with nitrogen, and contain large trees, have higher nest density. This could enable A. chartifex in similar areas to outcompete other ants due to high abundance.

Keywords

Azteca trigona Neotropics Nitrogen Nest density Nest size Phosphorus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Comments of Michael Patten, Ellen Welti, Lara Souza and Ana Ješovnik as well as suggestions of two anonymous reviewers and the handling editor greatly improved our manuscript. Oris Acevedo and Belkys Jimenez of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute provided logistical support in Panama. Arthur Escalas provided valuable R advice. This study was funded by the Biology Department (OU), the Graduate Student Senate (OU), and Frankopan Fund Fellowship awarded to JB, and National Science Foundation Macrosystems Grant EF-1065844 awarded to MK. The experiments in this study comply with the current laws of the Republic of Panama.

Author contribution statement

SJW designed and conducted the long-term fertilization experiment. JB, MK and SJW conceived and designed the study. JB conducted field work, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. MK and SJW provided editorial advice.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4314_MOESM1_ESM.docx (256 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 256 kb)

References

  1. Adams ES (1990) Boundary disputes in the territorial ant Azteca trigona: effects of asymmetries in colony size. Anim Behav 39:321–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80877-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams BJ, Schnitzer SA, Yanoviak SP (2016) Trees as islands: canopy ant species richness increases with the size of liana-free trees in a Neotropical forest. Ecography (Cop) 39:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen AN, Hoffmann BD, Muller WJ, Griffiths AD (2002) Using ants as bioindicators in land management: simplififyings assessment of ant community responses. J Appl Ecol 39:8–17.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00704.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen KM, Corre MD, Turner BL, Dalling JW (2010) Plant-soil associations in a lower montane tropical forest: physiological acclimation and herbivore-mediated responses to nitrogen addition. Funct Ecol 24:1171–1180.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01731.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aron S, Keller L, Passera L (2001) Role of resource availability on sex, caste and reproductive allocation ratio in the Argentine ant Linepthema humile. J Anim Ecol 70:831–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bixenmann RJ, Coley PD, Kursar TA (2011) Is extrafloral nectar production induced by herbivores or ants in a tropical facultative ant-plant mutualism? Oecologia 165:417–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1787-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Blüthgen N, Fiedler K (2002) Interactions between weaver ants Oecophylla smaragdina, homopterans, trees and lianas in an Australian rain forest canopy. J Anim Ecol 71:793–801.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blüthgen N, Fiedler K (2004) Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities. Ecology 85:1479–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blüthgen N, Stork N (2007) Ant mosaics in a tropical rainforest in Australia and elsewhere: a critical review. Aust Ecol 32:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blüthgen N, Verhaagh M, Goitía W et al (2000) How plants shape the ant community in the Amazonian rainforest canopy: the key role of extrafloral nectaries and homopteran honeydew. Oecologia 125:229–240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420000449 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bujan J, Wright SJ, Kaspari M (2016) Biogeochemical drivers of Neotropical ant activity and diversity. Ecosphere 7:e01597.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2003) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Byk J, Del-Claro K (2011) Ant-plant interaction in the Neotropical savanna: direct beneficial effects of extrafloral nectar on ant colony fitness. Popul Ecol 53:327–332.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-010-0240-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Camarota F, Powell S, Vasconcelos HL et al (2015) Extrafloral nectaries have a limited effect on the structure of arboreal ant communities in a neotropical savanna. Ecology 96:231–240.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0264.1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Camarota F, Powell S, Melo AS et al (2016) Co-occurrence patterns in a diverse arboreal ant community are explained more by competition than habitat requirements. Ecol Evol 6:8907–8918.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2606 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Campo J, Dirzo R (2003) Leaf quality and herbivory responses to soil nutrient addition in secondary tropical dry forests of Yucatán, Mexico. J Trop Ecol 19:525–530.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467403003572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Campos RI, Vasconcelos HL, Ribeiro SP et al (2006) Relationship between tree size and insect assemblages associated with Anadenanthera macrocarpa. Ecography (Cop) 29:442–450.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04520.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clay NA, Bauer M, Solis M, Yanoviak SP (2010) Arboreal substrates influence foraging in tropical ants. Ecol Entomol 35:417–423.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2010.01197.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clay NA, Lucas J, Kaspari M, Kay AD (2013) Manna from heaven: refuse from an arboreal ant links aboveground and belowground processes in a lowland tropical forest. Ecosphere 4:art141.  https://doi.org/10.1890/es13-00220.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Condit R, Pérez R, Daguerre N (2010) Trees of Panama and Costa Rica. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Croat TB (1978) Flora of Barro Colorado Island. Stanford University Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  22. Debout G, Schatz B, Elias M, Mckey D (2007) Polydomy in ants: what we know, what we think we know, and what remains to be done. Biol J Linn Soc 90:319–348.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00728.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Denno R, Fagan WF (2003) Might nitrogen limitation promote omnivory among carnivorous arthropods? Ecology 84:2522–2531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elser JJ, Sterner RW, Gorokhova E et al (2000) Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecol Lett 3:540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elser JJ, Bracken MES, Cleland EE et al (2007) Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 10:1135–1142.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01113.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Eskelinen A, Harrison S, Tuomi M (2012) Plant traits mediate consumer and nutrient control on plant community productivity and diversity. Ecology 93:2705–2718CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Forkner RE, Hunter MD (2000) What goes up must come down? Nutrient addition and predation pressure on Oak Herbivores. Ecology 81:1588.  https://doi.org/10.2307/177309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fox L, Morrow P (1992) Eucalypt responses to fertilization and reduced herbivory. Oecologia 89:214–222CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Goitía W, Jaffe K (2009) Ant-plant associations in different forests in Venezuela. Neotrop Entomol 38:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gonthier DJ, Ennis KK, Philpott SM, Vandermeer J, Perfecto I (2013) Ants defend coffee from berry borer colonization. Biocontrol 58(6):815–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gordon DM, Kulig AW (1996) Founding, foraging, and fighting: colony size and the spatial distribution of harvester ant nests. Ecology 77:2393–2409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gruner DS (2004) Attenuation of top-down and bottom-up forces in a complex terrestrial community. Ecology 85:3010–3022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gruner DS, Taylor AD (2006) Richness and species composition of arboreal arthropods affected by nutrients and predators: a press experiment. Oecologia 147:714–724.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0337-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Haddad NM, Haarstad J, Tilman D (2000) The effects of long-term nitrogen loading on grassland insect communities. Oecologia 124:73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050026 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Hargrove W, DA Crossley J, Seastedt T (1984) Shifts in insect herbivory in the canopy of black locust, Robinia pseudoacacia, after fertilization. Oikos 43:322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hietz P, Turner BL, Wanek W et al (2011) Long-term change in the nitrogen cycle of tropical forests. Science 334:664–666.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1211979 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Hillebrand H, Dürselen C-D, Kirschtel D et al (1999) Biovolume calculation for pelagic and benthic microalgae. J Phycol 35:403–424.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8817.1999.3520403.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hillebrand H, Gruner DS, Borer ET et al (2007) Consumer versus resource control of producer diversity depends on ecosystem type and producer community structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10904–10909.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701918104 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Mechanisms of dispersed central-place foraging in polydomous colonies of the Argentine ant. Anim Behav 59:433–441.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1329 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaspari M, Bujan J, Weiser MD et al (2017) Biogeochemistry drives diversity in the prokaryotes, fungi, and invertebrates of a Panama forest. Ecology 98:2019–2028.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1895 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Kay A, Zumbusch T, Heinen J (2010) Nutrition and interference competition have interactive effects on the behavior and performance of Argentine ants. Ecology 91:57–64CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Klimes P, Idigel C, Rimandai M et al (2012) Why are there more arboreal ant species in primary than in secondary tropical forests? J Anim Ecol 81:1103–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.02002.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Lanan MC, Dornhaus A, Bronstein JL (2011) The function of polydomy: the ant Crematogaster torosa preferentially forms new nests near food sources and fortifies outstations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:959–968.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1096-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Longino JT (2007) A taxonomic review of the genus Azteca (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Costa Rica and a global revision of the aurita group. Zootaxa 1491:1–63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9087-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lubin Y, Montgomery G, Young O (1977) Food resources of anteaters (Edentata: Myrmecophagidae) I. A year’s census of arboreal nests of ants and termites on Barro Colorado Island, Panama Canal Zone. Biotropica 9:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Majer JD (1976) The maintenance of the Ant Mosaic in Ghana Cocoa farms. J Appl Ecol 13:123–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matsumura M, Trafelet-Smith G, Gratton C (2004) Does intraguild predation enhance predator performance? A stoichiometric perspective. Ecology 85:2601–2615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mattson W (1980) Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mooney KA, Halitschke R, Kessler A, Agrawal AA (2010) Evolutionary trade-offs in plants mediate the strength of trophic cascades. Science 327:1642–1644.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1184814 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Poelman EH, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2008) Consequences of variation in plant defense for biodiversity at higher trophic levels. Trends Plant Sci 13:534–541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2008.08.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Portha S, Deneubourg J, Detrain C (2002) Self-organized asymmetries in ant foraging: a functional response to food type and colony needs. Behav Ecol 13:776–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/
  53. Room PM (1971) The relative distributions of ant species in Ghana’s Cocoa farms. J Anim Ecol 40:735–751.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanders NJ, Crutsinger GM, Dunn RR et al (2007) An ant mosaic revisited: dominant ant species disassemble arboreal ant communities but co-occur randomly. Biotropica 39:422–427.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00263.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Santiago LS, Wright SJ, Harms KE et al (2012) Tropical tree seedling growth responses to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium addition. J Ecol 100:309–316.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01904.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schupp EW, Feener DH (1991) Phylogeny, lifeform, and habitat dependence of ant-defended plants in a Panamanian forest. In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 175–197Google Scholar
  57. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  58. Strauss S (1987) Direct and indirect effects of host-plant fertilization on an insect community. Ecology 6:1670–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sun J, Liu D (2003) Geometric models for calculating cell biovolume and surface area for phytoplankton. J Plankton Res 25:1331–1346.  https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbg096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thomas DL, Taylor EJ (1990) Study designs and tests for comparing resource use and availability. J Wildl Manage 54:322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Toft S, Wise DH (1999) Growth, development, and survival of a generalist predator fed single- and mixed-species diets of different quality. Oecologia 119:198–207.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050776 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Tschinkel WR (2015) The architecture of subterranean ant nests: beauty and mystery underfoot. J Bioecon 17(3):271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vitousek PM (2004) Nutrient cycling and limitation: Hawai’i as a model system. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  64. Vitousek PM, Sanford R (1986) Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:137–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vitousek PM, Porder S, Houlton BZ, Chadwick OA (2010) Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen–phosphorus interactions. Ecol Appl 20:5–15CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Weber MG, Keeler KH (2013) The phylogenetic distribution of extrafloral nectaries in plants. Ann Bot 111:1251–1261.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs225 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Wright SJ, Yavitt JB, Wurzburger N et al (2011) Potassium, phosphorus, or nitrogen limit root allocation, tree growth, or litter production in a lowland tropical forest. Ecology 92:1616–1625CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Wright SJ, Turner BL, Yavitt JB et al (2018) Plant responses to fertilization experiments in lowland, species-rich, tropical forests. Ecology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2193 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Yanoviak SP (2015) Effects of lianas on canopy arthropod community structure. In: Schnitzer S et al (eds) Ecology of lianas. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp 345–361Google Scholar
  70. Yavitt JB, Harms KE, Garcia MN et al (2009) Spatial heterogeneity of soil chemical properties in a lowland tropical moist forest, Panama. Aust J Soil Res 47:674–687.  https://doi.org/10.1071/SR08258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  3. 3.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboaRepublic of Panama

Personalised recommendations