Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interaction Between African Weaver Ant Oecophylla longinoda and Dominant Ant Species Pheidole megacephala and Anoplolepis custodiens in Cashew Fields in Tanzania

  • Full-Length Research Article
  • Published:
Agricultural Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The interaction between the African weaver ant (AWA), Oecophylla longinoda Latreille, and dominant ant species, the big-headed ant (BHA), Pheidole megacephala Fabricius, and the common pugnacious ant (CPA), Anoplolepis custodiens Smith, was examined in the cashew fields at Bagamoyo and Mkuranga districts, Coast region of Tanzania. Sugar-based bait was used monthly to examine the interaction between AWA, BHA, and CPA, as well as other species of ants. There were significant differences in the abundance of AWA, BHA, CPA, and other ant species foraging at the baits (F (3,36) = 5.43; P = 0.002) and (F (3,36) = 11.69; P < 0.0001) at Bagamoyo and Mkuranga, respectively, in 2010. The mean abundances of AWA, BHA, CPA, and ‘others’ were 66.6, 24.6, 35.0, and 59.5 %, respectively, at Bagamoyo in 2010. A similar trend was observed in 2011. The abundance of AWA was significantly negatively correlated with BHA (r (39) = −0.30; P < 0.0001) and CPA (r (39) = −0.18; P = 0.01) at Bagamoyo in 2010. A similar trend was also observed at Mkuranga. The abundance of AWA was therefore negatively affected by the presence of the two dominant ants, BHA and CPA, which may hinder the effectiveness of AWA to control sap-sucking pests in cashew. Therefore, suppression of BHA and CPA should be emphasized for effective control of the sap-sucking pests using AWA.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adler ER, Gordon DM (2003) Optimization, conflict and non-overlapping foraging ranges in ants. Am Nat 162:529–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 forage abundance of other species. Oecologia 98:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baccaro FB, De Souza JLP, Franklin E, Landeiro VL, Magnusson WE (2012) Limited effects of dominant ants on assemblage species richness in three Amazon forests. Ecol Entomol 37:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boulay R, Cerdá X, Simon T, Roldan M, Hefetz A (2007) Intraspecific competition in the ant Camponotus cruentatus should we expect the “dear enemy effect?”. Anim Behav 74:985–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boulay JA, Galarza B, Chèron B, Hefetz A, Lenoir A, van Oudenhove L, Cerdá X (2010) Intraspecific competition affects population size and resource allocation in an ant dispersing by colony fission. Ecology 91:3312–3321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gordon DM, Kulig AW (1996) Founding, foraging and fighting: colony size and the spatial distribution of harvester ant nests. Ecology 77:2393–2409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grasso DA, Mori A, Giovannotti M, Le Moli F (2004) Interspecific interference behaviours by workers of the harvesting ant Messor capitatus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ethol Ecol Evol 16:197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1978) The multiple recruitment systems of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:19–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hölldobler B, Wilson E (1990) The ants. Springer, Berlin, p 732

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Knaden M, Wehner R (2003) Nest defence and conspecific enemy recognition in the desert ant Cataglyphis fortis. J Insect Behav 16:717–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Leclercq S, De Biseau JC, Braekman JC, Daloze D, Quinet Y, Luhmer M, Sundin A, Pasteels JM (2000) Furanocembranoid diterpenes as defensive compounds in the dufour gland of the ant Crematogaster brevispinosa. Tetrahedron 56:2037–2042

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Majer JD (1976) The maintenance of the ant mosaic in Ghana cocoa farms. J Appl Ecol 13:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nonacs P, Dill LM (1991) Mortality risk versus food quality trade-offs in ants: patch use over time. Ecol Entomol 16:73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Olotu MI, du Plessis H, Seguni ZS, Maniania NK (2012) Efficacy of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the control of Helopeltis spp. (Hemiptera: Miridae) and Pseudotheraptus wayi (Hemiptera: Coreidae) in cashew crop in Tanzania. Pest Manag Sci 69:911–918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parr CL, Gibb H (2009) Competition and the role of dominant ants. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 77–82

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Perfecto I, Castiñeiras C (1998) Deployment of the predaceous ants and their conservation in agro-ecosystems. In: Barbosa P (ed) Conservation biological control. Academic Press, New York, pp 269–289

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Seguni ZSK (1997) Biology and control of Pheidole megacephala (Hymenoptera: Formicidae, Myrmicinae) especially in relation to use of Oecophylla longinoda (Formicidae, Formicinae) for biological control of Pseudotheraptus wayi (Heteroptera: Coreidae) in Tanzanian coconut cropping systems. PhD Dissertation, University of London

  18. Seguni ZSK, Mwaiko W, Materu C, Nyange V (1999) Effect of natural aerial crown connections between leaves and branches of coconut palms and interplanted citrus trees on interactions between Pheidole megacephala Fabricius and Oecophylla longinoda Latreille. Tanzan J Agric Sci 2:107–113

    Google Scholar 

  19. Seguni ZSK, Way MJ, Van Mele P (2011) The effect of ground vegetation management on competition between the ants Oecophylla longinoda and Pheidole megacephala and implications for conservation biological control. Crop Prot 30:713–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. StatSoft Inc (2012) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 11. www.statsoft.com

  21. Tanner CJ, Adler FR (2009) To fight or not fight: context dependent interspecific aggression in competing ants. Anim Behav 77:297–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomas ML, Tsutsui ND, Holway DA (2005) Intra-specific competition influences the symmetry and intensity of aggression in the Argentine ant. Behav Ecol 16:472–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vanderplank FL (1960) The bionomics and ecology of the red tree ant, Oecophylla sp., and its relationship to the coconut bug Pseudotheraptus wayi Brown (Coreidae). J Anim Ecol 29:15–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Varela AM (1992) Role of Oecophylla longinoda (Formicidae) in control of Pseudotheraptus wayi (Coreidae) on coconut in Tanzania. PhD dissertation, University of London

  25. Way MJ (1953) The relationship between certain ant species with particular reference to biological control of the coreid, Theraptus sp. Bull Entomol Res 44:669–691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Way MJ, Khoo KC (1992) Role of ants in pest-management. Annu Rev Entomol 37:479–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zerhusen D, Rashid M (1992) Control of the big-headed ant Pheidole megacephala Fabricius (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with the fire ant bait ‘AMDRO’ and its secondary effect on the population of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Appl Entomol 113:258–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Germany, for providing financial support. I thank International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe) in collaboration with African Insect Science for Food and Health, the African Regional Postgraduate Programme in Insect Science of icipe and the Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute for overall assistance during this study. I am grateful to Messieurs J. Ambrosy, M. George, V. Nyange, B. Mruma, and G. Mwingira for technical assistance. I am also grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Ponzi and M. Chimela for providing access to field sites and farm facilities.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Life Sciences, Mkwawa University College of Education (MUCE), P.O. Box 2513, Iringa, Tanzania

    Moses I. Olotu

Authors
  1. Moses I. Olotu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moses I. Olotu.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 List of ant species named as ‘others’ observed foraging at the baits in the cashew fields at Bagamoyo and Mkuranga during 2010 and 2011
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olotu, M.I. Interaction Between African Weaver Ant Oecophylla longinoda and Dominant Ant Species Pheidole megacephala and Anoplolepis custodiens in Cashew Fields in Tanzania. Agric Res 5, 246–251 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-016-0228-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-016-0228-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation