Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 166, Issue 3, pp 783–794 | Cite as

Dominance and species co-occurrence in highly diverse ant communities: a test of the interstitial hypothesis and discovery of a three-tiered competition cascade

  • Xavier ArnanEmail author
  • Cédric Gaucherel
  • Alan N. Andersen
Community ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

The role of competitive exclusion is problematic in highly diverse ant communities where exceptional species richness occurs in the face of exceptionally high levels of behavioural dominance. A possible non-niche–based explanation is that the abundance of behaviourally dominant ants is highly patchy at fine spatial scales, and subordinate species act as insinuators by preferentially occupying these gaps—we refer to this as the interstitial hypothesis. To test this hypothesis, we examined fine-scale patterns of ant abundance and richness according to a three-tiered competition hierarchy (dominants, subdominants and subordinates) in an Australian tropical savanna using pitfall traps spaced at 2 m intervals. Despite the presence of gaps in the fine-scale abundance of individual species, the combined abundance of dominant ants (species of Iridomyrmex, Papyirus and Oecophylla) was relatively uniform. There was therefore little or no opportunity for subordinate species to preferentially occupy gaps in the foraging ranges of dominant species, and we found no relationship between the abundance of dominant ants and nondominant species richness at fine spatial scales. However, we found a negative relationship between subdominant and subordinate ants, a negative relationship between dominant and subdominant ants, and a positive relationship between dominant and subordinate ants. These results suggest that dominant species actually promote species richness by neutralizing the effects of subdominant species on subordinate species. Such indirect interactions have very close parallels with three-tiered trophic cascades in food webs, and we propose a “competition cascade” where the interactions are through a competition rather than trophic hierarchy.

Keywords

Behavioural dominance Community structure Competition hierarchy Fine spatial scale Species richness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Adele Bouillot for field and lab assistance and to Adam Liedloff for statistical advice. This research was partly funded by the Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya (grant 2007 BE-2 00178 to X. Arnan).

Supplementary material

442_2011_1919_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.6 mb)
Online resources 1 to 3 (DOC 1652 kb)

References

  1. Albrecht M, Gotelli NJ (2001) Spatial and temporal niche partitioning in grassland ants. Oecologia 126:134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen AN (1983) Species diversity and temporal distribution of ants in the semi-arid mallee region of north-western Victoria. Aust J Ecol 8:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen AN (1991a) Parallels between ants and plants: implications for community ecology. In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant–plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 539–558Google Scholar
  4. Andersen AN (1991b) Responses of ground-foraging ant communities to three experimental fire regimes in a savanna forest of tropical Australia. Biotropica 23:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen AN (1991c) Sampling communities of ground-foraging ants: pitfall catches compared with quadrat counts in an Australian tropical savanna. Aust J Ecol 16:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersen AN (1992) Regulation of “momentary” diversity by dominant species in exceptionally rich ant communities of the Australian seasonal tropics. Am Nat 140:401–420Google Scholar
  7. Andersen AN (1995) A classification of Australian ant communities, based on functional groups which parallel plant life-forms in relation to stress and disturbance. J Biogeogr 22:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersen AN (1997) Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: a comparison with Australia. J Biogeogr 24:433–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Andersen AN (2000) The ants of Northern Australia: a guide to the monsoonal fauna. CSIRO Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  10. Andersen AN (2003) Ant biodiversity in arid Australia: productivity, species richness and community organization. Record South Aust Mus Monogr Ser 7:79–92Google Scholar
  11. Andersen AN (2008) Not enough niches: non-equilibral processes promoting species coexistence in diverse ant communities. Austral Ecol 33:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Andersen AN, Hoffmann BD (2011) Biodiversity value of low fire frequency in tropical savannas: ants in monsoonal northern Australia. Austral Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Andersen AN, Patel AD (1994) Meat ants as dominant members of Australian ant communities: an experimental test of their influence on the foraging success and forager abundance of other species. Oecologia 98:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Andersen AN, Reichel H (1994) The ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) fauna of Holmes Jungle, a rainforest patch in the seasonal tropics of Australia’s Northern Territory. J Aust Entomol Soc 3:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Andersen AN, Blum MS, Jones TH (1991) Venom alkaloids in Monomorium “rothsteini” Forel repel other ants: is this the secret to success by Monomorium in Australian ant communities? Oecologia 88:157–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Andersen AN, Hertog T, Woinarski JCZ (2006) Long-term fire exclusion and ant community structure in an Australian tropical savanna: congruence with vegetation succession. J Biogeogr 33:823–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Andersen AN, Parr CL, Lowe LM, Müller WJ (2007) Contrasting fire-related resilience of ecologically dominant ants in tropical savannas of northern Australia. Diversity Distrib 13:438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Atkinson WD, Shorrocks B (1981) Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource—a simulation model. J Anim Ecol 50:461–471Google Scholar
  19. Bertness MD, Callaway R (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2009) Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western United States. Biol Conserv 142:2401–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1993) The trophic cascade in lakes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chase JM, Leibold MA (2003) Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Crist TO, Wiens JA (1996) The distribution of ant colonies in a semiarid landscape: implications for community and ecosystem processes. Oikos 76:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davidson DW (1980) Some consequences of diffuse competition in desert seed-eating ants. Am Nat 116:92–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunn RR, Agosti D, Andersen AN, Arnan X, Bruhl CA, Cerda X, Ellison AM, Fisher BL, Fitzpatrick MC, Gibb H, Gotelli NJ, Gove AD, Guenard B, Janda M, Kaspari ME, Laurent EJ, Lessard JP, Longino JT, Majer JD, Menke SB, McGlynn TP, Parr CL, Philpott SM, Pfeiffer M, Retana J, Suarez AV, Vasconcelos HL, Weiser MD, Sanders NJ (2009) Climatic drivers of hemispheric asymmetry in global patterns of ant species richness. Ecol Lett 12:324–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elmhagen B, Ludwig G, Rushton SP, Helle P, Lindén H (2010) Top predators, mesopredators and their prey: interference ecosystems along bioclimatic productivity gradients. J Anim Ecol 79:785–794PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Fellers JH (1987) Interference and exploitation in guild of woodland ants. Ecology 68:1466–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Finke DL, Denno RF (2004) Predator diversity dampens trophic cascades. Nature 429:407–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gaucherel C, Alleaume S, Hély C (2008) The comparison map profile method: a strategy for multiscale comparison of quantitative and qualitative images. IEEE Trans Geosci Rem Sens 46:2708–2719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibb H (2005) The effect of a dominant ant, Iridomyrmex purpureus, on resource use by ant assemblages depends on a microhabitat and resource type. Austral Ecol 30:856–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2003) Colonization by a dominant ant facilitated by anthropogenic disturbance: effects on ant assemblage composition, biomass and resource use. Oikos 103:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2004) Removal experiment reveals limited effects of a behaviorally dominant species on ant assemblages. Ecology 85:648–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Giller PS (1984) Community structure and the niche. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Giller PS, Doube B (1994) Spatial and temporal co-occurrence of competitors in Southern African dung beetle communities. J Anim Ecol 63:629–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldberg JL, Grant JWA, Lefebvre L (2001) Effect of the temporal predictability and spatial clumping of food on the intensity of competitive aggression in the Zenaida dove. Behav Ecol 12:490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greenslade PJM (1976) The meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as a dominant member of ant communities. J Aust Entomol Soc 15:237–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greenslade PJM (1978) Ants. In: Low WA (ed) The physical and biological features of Kunoth Paddock in Central Australia (CSIRO Division of Land Resources Management Technical Paper 4). CSIRO, Melbourne, pp 109–113Google Scholar
  38. Greenslade PJM (1979) A guide to ants of South Australia. South Australian Museum, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  39. Herbers JM (1989) Community structure in north temperate ants: temporal and spatial variation. Oecologia 81:201–211Google Scholar
  40. Hölldobler B (1983) Chemical manipulation, enemy specification and intercolony communication in ant communities. In: Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neuroethology and behavioural physiology. Springer, Berlin, pp 354–365Google Scholar
  41. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Inouye B (1999) Integrating nested spatial scales: implications for the coexistence of competitors on a patchy resource. J Anim Ecol 68:150–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ives AR (1991) Aggregation and coexistence in a carrion fly community. Ecol Monogr 61:75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ives AR, May RM (1985) Competition within and between species in patchy environments: relations between microscopic and macroscopic models. J Theor Biol 115:65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kaspari M (1996a) Litter ant patchiness at the m 2 scale: disturbance dynamics in three Neotropical forests. Oecologia 107:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaspari M (1996b) Testing resource-based models of patchiness in four Neotropical litter ant assemblages. Oikos 76:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaspari M (2000) A primer in ant ecology. In: Agosti D, Majer J, Alonso E, Schultz T (eds) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity (Biological Diversity Handbook Series). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 9–24Google Scholar
  48. MacArthur RH (1984) Geographical ecology: patterns in the distributions of species. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  49. Majer JD (1990) The abundance and diversity of arboreal ants in northern Australia. Biotropica 22:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McArthur RH, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moran MD (2003) Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morrison LW (2000) Mechanisms of interspecific competition among an invasive and two native fire ants. Oikos 90:238–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pace ML, Cole JJ, Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1999) Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 14:483–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palmer TM (2003) Spatial habitat heterogeneity influences competition and coexistence in an African acacia ant guild. Ecology 84:2843–2855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parr CL (2008) Dominant ants can control assemblage species richness in a South African savanna. J Anim Ecol 77:1191–1198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parr CL, Andersen AN (2008) Fire resilience of ant assemblages in long-unburnt savanna. Austral Ecol 33:830–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Perfecto I (1994) Foraging behaviour as a determinant of asymmetric competitive interaction between two ant species in a tropical agroecosystem. Oecologia 98:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Power ME (1990) Effects of fish in river food webs. Science 250:811–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Preisser EL (2003) Field evidence for a rapidly cascading underground food web. Ecology 84:869–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ribas CR, Schoereder JH (2002) Are all ant mosaics caused by competition? Oecologia 131:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Savolainen R, Vepsäläinen K (1988) A competition hierarchy among boreal ants: impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51:135–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Savolainen R, Vepsäläinen K (1989) Niche differentiation of ant species within territories of the wood ant Formica polyctena. Oikos 56:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scott KA, Setterfield SA, Douglas MM, Andersen AN (2009) Correlates of grass distribution in a savanna woodland in northern Australia. Aust J Bot 57:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. WH Freeman and Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Stringer LD, Haywood J, Lester PJ (2007) The influence of temperature and fine-scale resource distribution on resource sharing and domination in an ant community. Ecol Entomol 32:732–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. R Development Core Team (2005) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  67. Wilson EO (1975) Enemy specification in the alarm-recruitment system of an ant. Science 190:798–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Arnan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cédric Gaucherel
    • 2
  • Alan N. Andersen
    • 3
  1. 1.Unitat d’Ecologia, CREAF, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain
  2. 2.INRA, UMR AMAPMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Bushfire Co-operative Research CentreCSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, PMB 44WinnellieAustralia

Personalised recommendations