Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A metacommmunity approach to co-occurrence patterns and the core-satellite hypothesis in a community of tropical arboreal ants

Abstract

Inferring mechanisms of community assembly from co-occurrence patterns is difficult in systems where assembly processes occur at multiple spatial scales and among species with heterogeneous dispersal abilities. Here, we demonstrate that local scale analysis of co-occurrence patterns is inadequate to fully describe assembly mechanisms and instead utilize a metacommunity and core-satellite approach. We generated a co-occurrence and life-history data set for a community of twig-nesting ants on coffee plants across 36 sites within a tropical agroecosystem to test the following three hypotheses: (1) twig-nesting ant species compete for nest-sites, (2) they are structured as a metacommunity, and (3) core species show segregated patterns, while satellite species show random patterns of co-occurrence. Species were divided into four groups: core species that are well distributed regionally and dominant locally, regional dominants that are well distributed regionally but do not dominate locally, local dominants that are dominant locally but are not widely distributed, and satellites that are neither widely distributed nor dominant locally. Only the most abundant species in the community, Pseudomyrmex simplex, was classified as a core species. Regional dominants, local dominants, and satellite species show random patterns of co-occurrence. However, when P. simplex is included in the co-occurrence matrix, patterns become aggregated for all three species groupings. This suggests that P. simplex “assembles” the community by providing a core metapopulation that other species track. Analyzing co-occurrence patterns among candidate subsets of species, at multiple spatial scales, and linking them to species traits substantially improves the explanatory power of co-occurrence analyses in complex metacommunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Adler PB, Hillerislambers J, Levine JM (2007) A niche for neutrality. Ecol Lett 10:95–104

  2. Amarasekare P, Hoopes MF, Mouquet N, Holyoak M (2004) Mechanisms of coexistence in competitive metacommunities. Am Nat 164:310–326

  3. Armbrecht I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2004) Enigmatic biodiversity correlations: ant diversity responds to diverse resources. Science 304:284–286

  4. Byrne MM (1994) Ecology of twig-dwelling ants in a wet lowland tropical forest. Biotropica 26:61–72

  5. Cadotte MW, Lovett-Doust J (2007) Core and satellite species in degraded habitats: an analysis using Malagasy tree communities. Biodivers Conserv 16:2515–2529

  6. Carroll CR (1979) A comparative study of two ant faunas: the stem-nesting ant communities of Liberia, West Africa and Costa Rica, Central America. Am Nat 113:551–561

  7. Cavender-Bares J, Keen A, Miles B (2006) Phylogenetic structure of Floridian plant communities depends on spatial and taxonomic scale. Ecology 87:109–122

  8. Chase JM (2007) Drought mediates the importance of stochastic community assembly. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 104:17430–17434

  9. Colwell RK (2005) EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples, v. 8.0. User’s guide and application. http://purl.oclc.org/estimates

  10. 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

  11. Diamond JM (1975) Assembly of species communities. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 342–444

  12. Fernández F (2003) Introducción a las hormigas de la región neotropical. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, Colombia

  13. Frederickson ME (2006) The reproductive phenology of an Amazonian ant species reflects the seasonal availability of its nest sites. Oecologia 149:418–427

  14. Gotelli NJ (2000) Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81:2606–2621

  15. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL (2007) EcoSim: null models software for ecology, v. 7. http://garyentsminger.com/ecosim.htm

  16. Gotelli NJ, McCabe DJ (2002) Species co-occurrence: a meta-analysis of J. M. Diamond’s assembly rules model. Ecology 83:2091–2096

  17. Hanski I (1982) Dynamics of regional distribution: the core-satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38:210–221

  18. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49

  19. Hanski I, Gyllenberg M (1993) Two general metapopulation models and the core-satellite species hypothesis. Am Nat 142:17–41

  20. Helanterä H, Strassmann JE, Carrillo J, Queller DC (2009) Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going? Trends Ecol Evol 24:341–349

  21. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, Berlin

  22. Holt AR, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2002) The importance of biotic interactions in abundance-occupancy relationships. J Anim Ecol 71:846–854

  23. Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Mouquet N, Holt RD, Hoopes MF (2005) Metacommunities: a framework for large-scale community ecology. In: Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (eds) Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–32

  24. Horner-Devine MC, Silver JM, Leibold MA, Bohannan BJM, Colwell RK, Fuhrman JA, Green JL et al (2007) A comparison of taxon co-occurrence patterns for macro- and microorganisms. Ecology 88:1345–1353

  25. Kaspari M, Pickering J, Longino J, Windsor D (2001) The phenology of a Neotropical ant assemblage: evidence for continuous and overlapping reproduction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:382–390

  26. Kelly CK, Bowler MG, Pybus O, Harvey PH (2008) Phylogeny, niches and relative abundance in natural communities. Ecology 84:962–970

  27. Leibold MA, Mikkelson GM (2002) Coherence, species turnover, and boundary clumping: elements of meta-community structure. Oikos 97:237–250

  28. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF et al (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613

  29. Liere H, Perfecto I (2008) Cheating on a mutualism: indirect benefits of ant attendance to a coccidophagous coccinellid. Environ Entomol 37:143–149

  30. Livingston GF, White AM, Kratz CJ (2008) Indirect interactions between ant-tended hemipterans, a dominant ant Azteca instabilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), and shade trees in a tropical agroecosystem. Environ Entomol 37:734–740

  31. Longino JT (2003) The Crematogaster (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Myrmicinae) of Costa Rica. Zootaxa 151:1–150

  32. Longino JT (2007) Ants of Costa Rica. http://academic.evergreen.edu/projects/ants/AntsofCostaRica.html

  33. Majer JD, Delabie JHC (1999) Impact of tree isolation on arboreal and ground ant communities in cleared pasture in the Atlantic rain forest region of Bahia, Brazil. Insect Soc 46:281–290

  34. McGeoch MA, Gaston KJ (2002) Occupancy frequency distributions: patterns, artefacts and mechanisms. Biol Rev 77:311–331

  35. Moguel P, Toledo VM (1999) Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conserv Biol 13:11–21

  36. Mooney EH, McGraw JB (2009) Relationship between age, size, and reproduction in populations of American ginseng, Panax quinquefolius (Araliaceae), across a range of harvest pressures. Ecoscience 16:84–94

  37. Mouquet N, Loreau M (2002) Coexistence in metacommunities: the regional similarity hypothesis. Am Nat 159:420–426

  38. Palmer TM, Young TP, Stanton ML (2002) Burning bridges: priority effects and the persistence of a competitively subordinate acacia-ant in Laikipia, Kenya. Oecologia 133:372–379

  39. Pandit SN, Kolasa J, Cottenie K (2009) Contrasts between habitat generalists and specialists: an empirical extension to the basic metacommunity framework. Ecology 90:2253–2262

  40. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2002) Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 16:174–182

  41. Pfeiffer M, Tuck HC, Lay TC (2008) Exploring arboreal ant community composition and co-occurrence patterns in plantations of oil palm Elaeis guineensis in Borneo and Peninsular Malaysia. Ecography 31:21–32

  42. Philpott S (2005) Trait-mediated effects of parasitic phorid flies (Diptera: Phoridae) on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) competition and resource access in coffee agroecosystems. Environ Entomol 34:1089–1094

  43. Philpott SM (2006) Ant patchiness: a spatially quantitative test in coffee agroecosystems. Naturwissenschaften 93:386–392

  44. Philpott SM (2010) A canopy dominant ant affects twig-nesting ant assembly in coffee agroecosystems. Oikos (in press)

  45. Philpott SM, Foster PF (2005) Nest-site limitation in coffee agroecosystems: artificial nests promote maintenance of arboreal ant diversity. Ecol Appl 15:1478–1485

  46. Ross JV (2006) Stochastic models for mainland-island metapopulations in static and dynamic landscapes. Bull Math Biol 68:417–449

  47. Sale PF (1977) Maintenance of high diversity in coral reef fish communities. Am Nat 111:337–359

  48. Sanders NJ, Gotelli NJ, Heller NE, Gordon DM (2003) Community disassembly by an invasive species. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 5:2474–2477

  49. Sanders NJ, Crutsinger GM, Dunn RR, Majer JD, Delabie JHC (2007) An ant mosaic revisited: dominant ant species disassemble arboreal ant communities but co-occur randomly. Biotropica 39:422–427

  50. Schluter D (1984) A variance test for detecting species associations, with some example applications. Ecology 65:998–1005

  51. Selmi S, Boulinier T (2004) Distribution-abundance relationship for passerines breeding in Tunisian oases: test of the sampling hypothesis. Oecologia 139:440–445

  52. Storch D, Šizling AL (2002) Patterns in commoness and rarity in central European birds: reliability of the core-satellite hypothesis within a large scale. Ecography 25:405–416

  53. Ulrich W, Zalewski M (2006) Abundance and co-occurrence patterns of core and satellite species of ground beetles on small lake islands. Oikos 114:338–348

  54. Vandermeer J, Perfecto I, Philpott SM (2008) Clusters of ant colonies and robust criticality in a coffee agroecosystem. Nature 451:457–460

  55. VassarStats (2010) VassarStats: website for statistical computation. http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/VassarStats.html

  56. Yu DW, Wilson HB, Pierce NE (2001) An empirical model of species coexistence in a spatially structured environment. Ecology 82:1761–1771

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Vandermeer, I. Perfecto, A. De la Mora, K. Mathis, P. Bichier, G. López Bautista, and P.S. Ward for field assistance, identification of specimens, and for discussions that greatly improved this research. M. Leibold and his lab and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on this manuscript. The generosity of the Peters Family allowed this work to be conducted on their farm. The University of Michigan International Institute (Individual Fellowship to G. Livingston), and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and the National Science Foundation (Grant number DEB-0349388 to I. Perfecto and J. Vandermeer) funded this research. Voucher specimens are housed at the University of Toledo.

Author information

Correspondence to George F. Livingston.

About this article

Cite this article

Livingston, G.F., Philpott, S.M. A metacommmunity approach to co-occurrence patterns and the core-satellite hypothesis in a community of tropical arboreal ants. Ecol Res 25, 1129–1140 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-010-0738-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Assembly
  • Core-satellite hypothesis
  • Metacommunity
  • Tropical ecology
  • Co-occurrence