Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 10, Issue 7, pp 1001–1011 | Cite as

Aggressive interactions between the introduced Argentine ant, Linepithema humile and the native odorous house ant, Tapinoma sessile

  • Grzegorz Buczkowski
  • Gary W. Bennett
Original Paper

Abstract

The Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) is an invasive species that disrupts the balance of natural ecosystems by displacing indigenous ant species throughout its introduced range. The mechanisms by which Argentine ants effectively compete against native ant species have been previously addressed in field studies that centered on interference and exploitation competition at baits and mainly examined the colony-level performance of Argentine ants. Detailed behavioral observations explaining the basis for the strong competitive ability of L. humile are comparatively rare. To gain a better understanding of the mechanisms by which Argentine ants displace native ants we examined the aggressive interactions between the Argentine ants and the odorous house ant, Tapinoma sessile in four different aggression assays: (1) worker dyad interactions, (2) symmetrical group interactions, (3) intruder introductions into an established resident colony, and (4) a resource competition assay which focused on competition for food and nesting space. Our results demonstrate a clear disparity between worker-level and colony-level fighting ability of Argentine ants and provide behavioral evidence to explain the superior interference ability of Argentine ants in group assays. Argentine ants experienced mixed success in fighting against odorous house ants in dyad interactions, but gradually gained a numerical advantage in symmetrical group interactions by active cooperation among nestmates. Results of the resource competition assay indicate that Argentine ants recruit rapidly, numerically dominate food and nesting sites, and aggressively displace T. sessile from baits. Taken together, the results of these assays allow us to pinpoint the behavioral mechanisms responsible for the remarkable competitive ability of Argentine ants.

Keywords

Aggression assay Argentine ant Competition Invasive ants Linepithema humile Odorous house ant Tapinoma sessile 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jeffrey Holland and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript, C. Cummins for technical assistance, G. Fedorowicz for Argentine ants from California, J. Silverman for Argentine ants from North Carolina, and T. Clough for statistical advice. This study was supported in part by the Norm Ehmann Endowment Fund Award and the Industrial Affiliates Program at Purdue University.

References

  1. Adams ES (1990) Boundary disputes in the territorial ant, Azteca trigona: effects of asymmetries in colony size. Anim Behav 39:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alder P, Silverman J (2005) Effects of interspecific competition between two urban ant species, Linepithema humile and Monomorium minimum, on toxic bait performance. J Econ Entomol 98:493–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buczkowski G, Vargo E, Silverman J (2004) The diminutive supercolony: the Argentine ants of the southeastern United States. Mol Ecol 13:2235–2242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2005) Context-dependent nestmate discrimination and the effect of action thresholds on exogenous cue recognition in the Argentine ant. Anim Behav 69:741–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buczkowski G, Bennett GW (2006) Dispersed central-place foraging in the polydomous odorous house ant, Tapinoma sessile as revealed by a protein marker. Ins Soc 53:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatkar AD, Whitcomb WH (1970) Artificial diet for rearing various species of ants. Fl Entomol 53:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creighton WS (1950) The ants of North America. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, vol 104, 585 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Fellers JH (1987) Interference and exploitation in a guild of woodland ants. Ecology 69:1466–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gary NE (1975) Activities and behavior of honey bees. In: The hive and the honey bee. Dadant and Sons, Hamilton, ILGoogle Scholar
  10. Giraud T, Pedersen JS, Keller L (2002) Evolution of supercolonies: the Argentine ants of southern Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:6075–6079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon DM (1989) Ants distinguish neighbors from strangers. Oecologia 81:198–200Google Scholar
  12. Hölldobler B, Lumsden CJ (1980) Territorial strategies in ants. Science 210:732–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Holway DA (1995) Distribution of the Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) in northern California. Conserv Biol 9:1634–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holway DA (1998) Effect of Argentine ant invasions on ground-dwelling arthropods in northern California riparian woodlands. Oecologia 116:252–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holway DA (1999) Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80:238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Mechanisms of dispersed central-place foraging in polydomous colonies of the Argentine ant. Anim Behav 59:433–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) Causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holway DA, Suarez AV (2004) Colony-structure variation and interspecific competitive ability in the invasive Argentine ant. Oecologia 138:216–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Human KG, Gordon DM (1996) Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Human KG, Gordon DM (1999) Behavioral interactions of the invasive Argentine ant with native ant species. Ins Soc 46:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaffe K, Bazire-Benazet M, Howse PE (1979) An integumentary pheromone-secreting gland in Atta sp.: territorial marking with a colony-specific pheromone in Atta cephalotes. J Insect Physiol 25:833–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lanchster FW (1916) Aircraft in warfare. Appleton, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. Markin GP (1970) The seasonal life cycle of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in southern California. Ann Entomol Soc Am 63:1238–1242Google Scholar
  25. Mayade S, Cammaerts MC, Suzzoni JP (1993) Home range marking and territorial marking in Cataglyphis cursor (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Proc 30:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nowbahari E, Fénéron R, Malberbe M (1999) Effect of body size on aggression in the ant, Cataglyphis niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Aggress Behav 25:369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Passera L (1994) Characteristics of tramp species. In: Williams DF (ed) Exotic ants: impact and control of introduced species. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  28. Roulston TH, Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2003) Nestmate discrimination in ants: effect of bioassay on aggressive behavior. Ins Soc 50:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roura-Pascual N, Suarez AV, Gomez 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 271:2527–2534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rowles AD, O’Dowd DJ (2007) Interference competition by Argentine ants displaces native ants: implications for biotic resistance to invasion. Biol Invasions 9:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sands WA (1982) Agonistic behavior of African soldierless Apicotermitinae (Isoptera: Termitidae). Sociobiology 7:61–73Google Scholar
  32. SAS Institute (2002) SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, Version 8.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakata H, Katayama N (2001) Ant defence system: a mechanism organizing individual responses into efficient collective behavior. Ecol Res 16:395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shattuck SO (1992) Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dolichoderinae (Hymenopetra: Formicidae). Sociobiology 21:1–181Google Scholar
  35. Starks PT, Fischer DJ, Watson RE, Melikian GL, Nath GL (1998) Context-dependent nestmate discrimination in the paper wasp, Polistes dominulus: a critical test of the optimal acceptance threshold model. Anim Behav 56:449–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Holway DA, Case TJ (1999) Behavioral and genetic differentiation between native and introduced populations of the Argentine ant. Biol Inv 1:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 USA 98:1095–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Liang D, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) Spatiotemporal patterns of intraspecific aggression in the invasive Argentine ant. Anim Behav 64:697–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tanner CJ (2006) Numerical assessment affects aggression and competitive ability: a team-fighting strategy for the ant Formica xarophila. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2737–2742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas ML, Holway DA (2005) Condition-specific competition between invasive Argentine ants and Australian Iridomyrmex. J Anim Ecol 74:532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson RC (1990) Ants that have pest status in the United States. In: Vander Meer RK, Jaffe K, Cedeno A (eds) Applied myrmecology: a world perspective. Westview Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Touyama Y, Ogata K, Sugiyama T (2003) The Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, in Japan: assessment of impact on species diversity of ant communities in urban environments. Entomol Sci 6:67–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Traniello JFA, Beshers SN (1991) Maximization of foraging efficiency and resource defense by group retrieval in the ant Formica schaufussi. Behav Ecol 29:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV, Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5948–5953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. The Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, NJGoogle Scholar
  47. Zee J, Holway DA (2006) Nest raiding by the invasive Argentine ant on colonies of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex subnitidus. Ins Soc 53:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations