Discovery and defense define the social foraging strategy of Neotropical arboreal ants
- 308 Downloads
Interspecific trade-offs in foraging strategies can facilitate species coexistence in diverse communities with overlapping resource use, especially in taxa with complex social-foraging strategies. The discovery-dominance trade-off hypothesis is often invoked to help explain coexistence of ant species that use overlapping food resources, wherein colonies of some species are better at collectively discovering new food, while others have superior social fighting abilities to subsequently assert dominance over a resource. This hypothesis has yet to be tested in diverse arboreal ant communities. We assessed the competitive outcomes of arboreal ants at new food resources and further asked if the number of ants present and their body size influenced the observed outcomes. We did not find support for a discovery-dominance trade-off. Instead, we identified a discovery-defense strategy, wherein the first species to collectively forage at a new food resource usually defended it successfully from other species. This suggests that the discovery phase is the most important for determining the outcome of competition over food in arboreal ants. This importance was further supported by the insight that the number of ants present largely determined the access of species to food resources, not individual body size. Broadly, our results suggest that although arboreal ants rely on similar food resources, coexistence may be mediated in part by the prevalence of the discovery-defense strategy: most species have the capacity to be the first to discover newly available food resources within the complex canopy, and discovery is coupled with the ability to defend a new food resource long enough to benefit from it.
The discovery-dominance hypothesis is one of the most studied trade-offs in research on foraging interactions and coexistence in ant communities. Since most ant species have a relatively similar diet, species may differ in their ability to either be the first to discover food, or subsequently dominate food via better fighting abilities. However, instead of the discovery-dominance trade-off, we identified support for a widespread discovery-defense strategy in arboreal ant communities. In this discovery-defense strategy, the first species to collectively forage at a new resource is also typically the one to keep control of it. Moreover, we also found that the most important trait for arboreal ants in determining their success at a food resource was the number of ants present, which emphasizes the importance of the discovery phase in interspecific competitive outcomes.
KeywordsCanopy Competition Recruitment Resource exploitation Species coexistence
The authors would like to thank M. Gonzaga, R. Feitosa, R. Pacheco, S. Sendoya, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on prior versions of this manuscript.
This study was funded by research grants from the Brazilian Council of Research and Scientific Development, the Brazilian Ministry for Education (MEC/CAPES), and the National Science Foundation (Awards DEB 0842144, and DEB 1442256).
- Arauco-Aliaga RP (2013) Diversity and species interactions in ant communities of Amazonian rainforests in southeast Peru. University of Utah, Utah UMI 3565591Google Scholar
- Bartón K (2018) MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. version 1.40.4Google Scholar
- Buschinger A, Maschwitz U (1984) Defensive behavior and defensive mechanisms in ants. In: Hermann HR (ed) Defensive mechanisms in social insects. Praeger Publisher, New York, pp 95–150Google Scholar
- Camarota F, Powell S, Melo AS, Priest G, Marquis B, Vasconcelos HL (2016) Co-occurrence patterns in a diverse arboreal ant community are explained more by competition than habitat requirements. Ecol Evol 6:1–12Google Scholar
- Cardoso E, Moreno MIC, Bruna EM, Vasconcelos HL (2009) Mudanças fitofisionômicas no cerrado: 18 anos de sucessão ecológica na estação ecológica do panga, Uberlândia-MG. Caminhos de Geografia 32:254–268Google Scholar
- Cerdá X, Arnan X, Retana J (2013) Is competition a significant hallmark of ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) ecology. Myrmecol News 18:131–147Google Scholar
- Delabie JHC (1994) Cooperative shield phragmosis by minor workers of Zacryptocerus pusillus (Hymenoptera; Formicidae; Cephalotini). Etologia 4:99–102Google Scholar
- Dornhaus A, Powell S (2010) Foraging and defence strategies. In: Lach L, Parr K, Abbot C (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 115–136Google Scholar
- Lanan M (2014) Spatiotemporal resource distribution and foraging strategies of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol news 20:53–70Google Scholar
- MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Parr CL, Gibb H (2010) Competition and the role of dominant ants. In: Lach L, Parr K, Abbot C (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 77–96Google Scholar
- Pearce Duvet JM, Moyano M, Adler FR, Feener DH Jr (2011) Fast food in ant communities: how competing species find resources. Oecologia 167:229–240Google Scholar
- Stuble KL, Jurić I, Cerdá X, Sanders NJ (2017) Dominance hierarchies are a dominant paradigm in ant ecology (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), but should they be? And what is a dominance hierarchy anyways? Myrmecol News 24:71–81Google Scholar
- Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Vepsäläinen K, Pisarski B (1982) Assembly of island ant communities. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo 19:327–335Google Scholar