Biological Invasions

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 723–735 | Cite as

Modelling the potential geographic distribution of invasive ant species in New Zealand

  • Darren F. WardEmail author
Original Paper


Despite their economic and environmental impacts, there have been relatively few attempts to model the distribution of invasive ant species. In this study, the potential distribution of six invasive ant species in New Zealand are modelled using three fundamentally different methods (BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, MAXENT). Species records were obtained from museum collections in New Zealand. There was a significant relationship between the length of time an exotic species had been present in New Zealand and its geographic range. This is the first time such a time lag has been described for exotic ant species, and shows there is a considerable time lag in their spread. For example, it has taken many species several decades (40–60 years) to obtain a distribution of 17–25% of New Zealand regions. For all six species, BIOCLIM performed poorly compared to the other two modelling methods. BIOCLIM had lower AUC scores and higher omission error, suggesting BIOCLIM models under-predicted the potential distribution of each species. Omission error was significantly higher between models fitted with all 19 climate variables compared to those models with fewer climate variables for BIOCLIM, but not DOMAIN or MAXENT. Widespread species had a greater commission error. A number of regions in New Zealand are predicted to be climatically suitable for the six species modelled, particularly coastal and lowland areas of both the North and South Islands.


Invasive ants BIOCLIM DOMAIN MAXENT Species distribution modelling 



Many thanks to Richard Harris for access to database records, and to Steve Phillips and Robert Hijmans for their assistance with software. Thanks to Jacqueline Beggs, Mick Clout and Margaret Stanley for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This work was supported by the Entomological Society of New Zealand, Landcare Research (FRST C09X0507), and a FRST doctoral scholarship.


  1. Anderson RP, Lew D, Peterson AT (2003) Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol Modell 162:211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaumont LJ, Hughes L, Poulsen M (2005) Predicting species distribution: use of climatic parameters in BIOCLIM and its impact on predictions of species’ current and future distributions. Ecol Modell 186:250–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown WL (1958) A review of the ants of New Zealand. Acta Hymenopterologica 1:1–50Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter G, Gillison AN, Winte J (1993) DOMAIN: a flexible modeling procedure for mapping potential distributions of plants, animals. Biodivers Conserv 2:667–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christian CE (2001) Consequences of a biological invasion reveal the importance of mutualism for plant communities. Nature 413:635–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2005) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. Plymouth Marine LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  7. Crosby TK, Dugdale JS, Watt JC (1998) Area codes for recording specimen localities in the New Zealand subregion. N Z J Zool 25:175–183Google Scholar
  8. Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Williamson M (1989) Biological invasions: a global perspective. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton J.McC, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Modell 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartley S, Lester PJ (2003) Temperature-dependent development of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a degree-day model with implications for range limits in New Zealand. New Zeal Entomol 26:91–100Google Scholar
  14. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Holway DA, Suarez AV (2006) Homogenization of ant communities in Mediterranean California: the effects of urbanisation and invasion. Biol Conserv 127:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landcare Research (2006) New Zealand ant distribution data. Accessed April 2006
  19. Loiselle BA, Howell CA, Graham CH, Goerck JM, Brooks T, Smith KG, Williams PH (2003) Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 17:1591–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaspari M, Alonso A, O’Donnell S (2000) Three energy variables predict ant abundance at a geographical scale. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:485–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korzukhin MD, Porter SD, Thompson LC, Wiley S (2001) Modelling temperature-dependent range limits for the fire ant Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the United States. Environ Entomol 30:645–655Google Scholar
  22. Kriticos DJ, Randell RP (2001) A comparison of systems to analyse potential weed distribution. In: Groves RH, Panetta FD, Virtue JG (eds) Weed risk assessment. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  23. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout MN, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: casues, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meynecke JO (2004) Effects of global climate change on geographic distributions of vertebrates in North Queensland. Ecol Modell 174:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGlynn TP (1999) The worldwide transfer of ants: geographical distribution and ecological invasions. J Biogeogr 26:535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) (1986) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Morrison LW, Porter SD, Daniels E, Korzukhin MD (2003) Potential global range expansion of the invasive fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Biol Invasions 6:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nix H (1986) A biogeographic analysis of Australian Elapid snakes. In: Longmore R (ed) Snakes: atlas of Elapid snakes of Australia. Bureau of Flora and Fauna, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Dowd DJ, Green PT, Lake PS (2003) Invasional ‘meltdown’ on an oceanic island. Ecol Lett 6:812–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peterson AT (2003) Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche modeling. Q Rev Biol 78:419–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips SJ, Dudik M, Schapire RE (2004) A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modelling. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pimm SL, Bartell DP (1980) Statistical model for predicting range expansion of the Red Imported Fire Ant, Solenopsis invicta, in Texas. Environ Entomol 9:653–658Google Scholar
  34. Puth LM, Post DM (2005) Studying invasion: have we missed the boat?. Ecol Lett 8:715–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roura-Pascual N, Suarez AV, Gómez C, Pons P, Touyama Y, Wild AL, Peterson AT (2004) Geographical potential of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile Mayr) in the face of global climate change. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2527–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandland OT, Schei PJ, Viken A (eds) (1999) Invasive species and biodiversity management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  37. Segurado P, Araújo MB (2004) An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J Biogeogr 31:1555–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoker RL, Ferris DK, Grant WE, Folse LJ (1994) Simulating colonization by exotic species: a model of the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) in North America. Ecol Modell 73:281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND (2004) The value of museum collections for research and society. Bioscience 54:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Case TJ (2001) Patterns of spread in biological invasions dominated by long-distance jump dispersal: Insights from Argentine ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:1095–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Ward PS (2005) The role of opportunity in the unintentional introduction of non-native ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:17032–17035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sutherst RW, Maywald G (2005) A climate model of the Red Imported Fire Ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): implications for invasion of new regions, particularly Oceania. Environ Entomol 34:317–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Téllez-Valdés O, Dávila-Aranda P (2003) Protected areas and climate change: a case study of the Cacti in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Biosphere Reserve, México. Conserv Biol 17:846–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vega SJ, Rust MK (2001) The Argentine ant—a significant invasive species in agricultural, urban and natural environments. Sociobiology 37:3–25Google Scholar
  45. Ward DF (2005) Changes to the classification of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). The Weta 30:16–18Google Scholar
  46. Ward DF, Harris R (2005) Invasibility of native habitats by Argentine Ants, Linepithema humile, in New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 29:215–219Google Scholar
  47. Ward DF, Beggs JR, Clout MN, Harris RJ, O’Connor S (2006) The diversity and origin of exotic ants arriving to New Zealand via human-mediated dispersal. Diversity and Distributions. 12:601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ward DF, Harris RJ, Stanley MC (2005) Human-mediated range expansion of Argentine ants Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in New Zealand. Sociobiology 45:401–407Google Scholar
  49. Williams DF (1994) Exotic ants: biology, impact, and control of introduced species. Westview Press, Boulder ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams PA, Cameron EK (2006) Creating gardens: the diversity and progression of European plant introductions. In: Allen RB and Lee WG (eds) Biological invasions in New Zealand. Springer-Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Zaniewski AE, Lehmann A, Overton JMcC (2002) Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecol Modell 157:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations