Advertisement

Release from intraspecific competition promotes dominance of a non-native invader

  • Robert J. WarrenIIEmail author
  • Katelyn Reed
  • Abby Mathew
  • Kevin Krupp
  • Madeson Goodman
  • Kazz Archibald
  • David J. Spiering
Original Paper

Abstract

Species can coexist through equalizing (similar fitness abilities) and stabilizing (unique niche requirements) mechanisms—assuming that intraspecific competition imposes more limitation than interspecific competition. Non-native species often de-stabilize coexistence, suggesting that they bring either a fitness advantage or a distinct niche requirement. We tested whether greater fitness or unique niche requirements best explained a successful North American invasion by the European Myrmica rubra ant. North American invaded-range M. rubra aggressively sting and occur in enormous numbers (suggesting a fitness advantage), yet our study site has a history of anthropogenic disturbance that might favor M. rubra (suggesting a unique niche). We compared M. rubra to native ants, principally the dominant North American woodland ant Aphaenogaster picea, using physiological health (lipids and size), monthly bait station surveys and aggression assays to assess fitness abilities, and we used nest surveys and isotope analysis to assess niche characteristics. We confirmed the field observations with laboratory experiments that tested colony aggression (direct competition) and food retrieval (indirect competition). In both the observational and experimental investigations, we found little evidence of M. rubra interspecific competitive advantage (aggression or food retrieval) or niche differentiation. Instead, M. rubra violated the basic assumption of coexistence theory: intraspecific competition consistently was less than interspecific competition. Freed up from the costs and limitations of territorial competition, some non-native species may outcompete native species by not competing with themselves. This ‘friendly release’ from intraspecific competition provides an ecological mechanism for some successful invasions.

Keywords

Aphaenogaster Coexistence Competition Myrmica rubra Niche Supercolony 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by the SUNY Buffalo State Office of Undergraduate Research. The authors would like to thank Zandra Wills, Nalah Joseph, Kazz Archibald, Connor Blizzard, Mike Olejniczak, Rabiyah Irfan, Rhudwan Nihlawi and Sonya Bayba for field and laboratory assistance. We also are grateful to Don Brasure and Wayne Gall for collecting data on Tifft ants in the 1990s. We thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. The authors also thank the Buffalo Museum of Science and Tifft Nature Preserve for permission to conduct field research.

Author contributions

RW conceived the ideas and designed methodology; KR, AM, KK and MG collected the data; RW and DS supervised data collection. RW led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Data accessibility

The data generated and analyzed for the current study are available in the SUNY Buffalo State Digital Commons [http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/biology_data/4].

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1868_MOESM1_ESM.docx (666 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 666 kb)
10530_2018_1868_MOESM2_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 28 kb)
10530_2018_1868_MOESM3_ESM.docx (337 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 337 kb)

References

  1. Adams ES (2016) Territoriality in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a review. Myrmecol News 23:101–118Google Scholar
  2. Beattie AJ (1985) The evolutionary ecology of ant-plant mutualism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berryman A, Turchin P (2001) Identifying the density-dependent structure underlying ecological time series. Oikos 92:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertelsmeier C, Avril A, Blight O et al (2015) Different behavioural strategies among seven highly invasive ant species. Biol Invasions 17:2491–2503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bluthgen N, Feldhaar H (2010) Food and shelter: How resources influence ant ecology. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasure D (1996) Control of an alien ant. Buffalo Museum of Science, Buffalo (Unpublished) Google Scholar
  7. Brian MV (1952) The structure of a dense natural ant population. J Anim Ecol 21:12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calcaterra L, Cabrera S, Briano J (2016) Local co-occurrence of several highly invasive ants in their native range: are they all ecologically dominant species? Insectes Soc 63:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cerda X, Arnan X, Retana J (2013) Is competition a significant hallmark of ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) ecology? Myrmecol. News 18:131–147Google Scholar
  10. Chen W, Adams ES (2018) The distribution and habitat affinities of the invasive ant Myrmica rubra (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Southern New England. Environ Entomol 47:527–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark JS, Soltoff BD, Powell AS et al (2012) Evidence from individual inference for high-dimensional coexistence: long-term experiments on recruitment response. PLoS One 7:e30050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daehler CC (2001) Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis revisited. Am Nat 158:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin C (1859) The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Diez JM, Sullivan JJ, Hulme PE et al (2008) Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: dissecting taxonomic patterns of species invasions. Ecol Lett 11:674–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elmes GW (1973) Observations on the density of queens in natural colonies of Myrmica rubra L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Anim Ecol 42:761–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elmes GW (1980) Queen numbers in colonies of ants of the genus Myrmica. Insectes Soc 27:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Errard C, Delabie J, Jourdan H et al (2005) Intercontinental chemical variation in the invasive ant Wasmannia auropunctata (Roger) (Hymenoptera Formicidae): a key to the invasive success of a tramp species. Naturwissenschaften 92:319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felker-Quinn E, Schweitzer JA, Bailey JK (2013) Meta-analysis reveals evolution in invasive plant species but little support for Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA). Ecol Evol 3:739–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fournier D, de Biseau J-C, De Laet S et al (2016) Social structure and genetic distance mediate nestmate recognition and aggressiveness in the facultative polygynous ant Pheidole pallidula. PLoS One 11:e0156440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox J (2008) Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  23. Furst MA, Durey M, Nash DR (2011) Testing the adjustable threshold model for intruder recognition on Myrmica ants in the context of a social parasite. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 279:516–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garnas J (2004) European fire ants on Mount Desert Island, Maine: population structure, mechanisms of competition and community impacts of Myrmica rubra L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). In: Ecology and environmental sciences. The University of Maine, OronoGoogle Scholar
  25. Garnas JR, Drummond FA, Groden E (2007) Intercolony aggression within and among local populations of the invasive ant, Myrmica rubra (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in coastal Maine. Environ Entomol 36:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garnas J, Groden E, Drummond FA (2014) Mechanisms of competitive displacement of native ant fauna by invading Myrmica rubra (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) populations. Environ Entomol 43:1496–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2004) Removal experiment reveals limited effects of a behaviorally dominant species on ant assemblages. Ecology 85:648–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibb H, Johansson T (2011) Field tests of interspecific competition in ant assemblages: revisiting the dominant red wood ants. J Anim Ecol 80:548–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giraud T, Pedersen JS, Keller L (2002) Evolution of supercolonies: the Argentine ants of southern Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:6075–6079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Golivets M, Wallin KF (2018) Neighbour tolerance, not suppression, provides competitive advantage to non-native plants. Ecol Lett 21:745–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goodman M (2018) Experimental evidence that the non-native European fire ant alters invertebrate communities. Department of Biology, SUNY Buffalo State, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  32. Groden E, Drummond FA, Garnas J et al (2005) Distribution of an invasive ant, Myrmica rubra (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in Maine. J Econ Entomol 98:1774–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hicks BJ, Pilgrim BL, Marshall HD (2014) Origins and genetic composition of the European fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Newfoundland, Canada. Can Entomol 146:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. HilleRisLambers J, Adler PB, Harpole WS et al (2012) Rethinking community assembly through the lens of coexistence theory. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 43:227–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holway DA (1998) Factors governing rate of invasion: a natural experiment using Argentine ants. Oecologia 115:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holway DA, Suarez AV, Case TJ (1998) Lose of intraspecific aggression in the success of a widespread invasive social insect. Science 282:949–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV et al (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J. 50:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huszár DB, Larsen RS, Carlsen S et al (2014) Convergent development of ecological, genetic, and morphological traits in native supercolonies of the red ant Myrmica rubra. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1859–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hutchinson GE (1957) Population studies—animal ecology and demography—concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 22:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. King JR, Tschinkel WR (2008) Experimental evidence that human impacts drive fire ant invasions and ecological change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20339–20343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. King JR, Warren RJ II, Bradford MA (2013) Social insects dominate eastern US temperate hardwood forest macroinvertebrate communities in warmer regions. PLoS One 8:e75843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krushelnycky PD, Holway DA, LeBrun EG et al (2010) Invasion processes and causes of success. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Levine JM, Vila M, D’Antonio CM et al (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 270:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lotka AJ (1924) Elements of physical biology. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  48. Lubertazzi D (2012) The biology and natural history of Aphaenogaster rudis. Psyche 2012:752815Google Scholar
  49. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Naumann K, Higgins RJ (2015) The European fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as an invasive species: impact on local ant species and other epigaeic arthropods. Can Entomol 147:592–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ouellette GD, Drummond FA, Choate B et al (2010) Ant diversity and distribution in Acadia National Park, Maine. Environ Entomol 39:1447–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parr CL, Gibb H (2009) Competition and the role of dominant ants. In: Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parr CL, Gibb H (2011) The discovery–dominance trade-off is the exception, rather than the rule. J Anim Ecol 81:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petal J (1967) Productivity and the consumption of food in the Myrmica laevinodis populations. In: Petrusewicz K (ed) Secondary productivity of terrestrial ecosystems. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, pp 841–858Google Scholar
  55. R Core Team Version 3.5.0 (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, 3.5.0 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  56. Roulston TH, Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2003) Nestmate discrimination in ants: effect of bioassay on aggressive behavior. Insectes Soc 50:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanders NJ, Suarez AV (2011) Elton’s insights into the ecology of ant invasions: lessons learned and lessons still to be learned. In: Richardson DM (ed) Fifty years of invasion biology: the legacy of Charles Elton. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanders NJ, Gotelli NJ, Heller NE et al (2003) Community disassembly by an invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:2474–2477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Savolainen R, Vepsalainen K (1988) A competition hierarchy among boreal ants: impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51:135–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Seppa P (1996) Genetic relatedness and colony structure in polygynous Myrmica ants. Ethol Ecol Evol 8:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stachowicz JJ, Tilman D (2005) Species invasions and the relationships between species diversity, community saturation, and ecosystem functioning. In: Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Gaines SD (eds) Species Invasions: Insights into ecology, evolution, and biogeography. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 41–64Google Scholar
  62. Stevens MHH (2009) A primer of ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Holway DA et al (1999) Behavioral and genetic differentiation between native and introduced populations of the Argentine ant. Biol Invasions 1:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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 98:1095–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Tsutsui ND (2008) Genetics and behavior of a colonizing species: the invasive Argentine ant. Am Nat 172:S72–S84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tillberg CV, McCarthy DP, Dolezal AG et al (2006) Measuring the trophic ecology of ants using stable isotopes. Insectes Soc 53:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tschinkel WR (2006) The fire ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  68. Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV, Holway DA et al (2000) Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5948–5953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van der Hammen T, Pederson JS, Boomsma JJ (2002) Convergent development of low-relatedness supercolonies in Myrmica ants. Heredity 89:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Volterra V (1931) Lessons on the mathematical theory of the struggle for life (Original: Leçons sur la théorie mathématique de la Lutte pour la vie). Gauthier-Villars, ParisGoogle Scholar
  71. Wardlaw JC, Elmes GW (1996) Exceptional colony size in Myrmica species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomologist 115:191–196Google Scholar
  72. Warren RJ II, Giladi I, Bradford MA (2012) Environmental heterogeneity and interspecific interactions influence occupancy be key seed-dispersing ants. Environ Entomol 41:463–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Warren RJ II, McMillan A, King JR et al (2015) Forest invader replaces predation but not dispersal services by a keystone species. Biol Invasions 23:3153–3162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Warren RJ II, King J, Chick LD et al (2017) Global change impacts on ant-mediated seed dispersal in eastern North American forests. In: Oliveira PS, Koptur S (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  75. Warren RJ II, Candeias M, Labatore AC et al (2018a) Multiple mechanisms in woodland plant species invasion. J Plant Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rty010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Warren II RJ, Mathew A, Reed K, et al. (2018b) Myrmica rubra microhabitat selection and putative ecological impact. Ecol Entomol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wetterer JK, Radchenko AG (2011) Worldwide spread of the ruby ant, Myrmica rubra (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 14:87–98Google Scholar
  78. Wheeler WM (1908) A European ant (Myrmica laevinodis) introduced into Massachusetts. J Econ Entomol 1:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SUNY Buffalo StateBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Museum of Science – Tifft Nature PreserveBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations