Biological Invasions

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 43–53 | Cite as

Behavioral and Genetic Differentiation Between Native and Introduced Populations of the Argentine Ant

  • Andrew V. Suarez
  • Neil D. Tsutsui
  • David A. Holway
  • Ted J. Case
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the hypothesis that reduced intraspecific aggression underlies the competitive prowess of Argentine ants in their introduced range. Specifically, we test three predictions of this hypothesis by comparing the genetic diversity, behavior, and ecology of Argentine ants in their native range to introduced populations. Differences between native and introduced populations of Argentine ants were consistent with our predictions. Introduced populations of the Argentine ant appear to have experienced a population bottleneck at the time of introduction, as evidenced by much reduced variation in polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers. Intraspecific aggression was rare in introduced populations but was common in native populations. Finally, in contrast to the Argentine ant's ecological dominance throughout its introduced range, it did not appear dominant in the native ant assemblages studied in Argentina. Together these results identify a possible mechanism for the widespread success of the Argentine ant in its introduced range.

Argentine ant biological invasions competition invasive ants Linepithema humile microsatellites nestmate recognition population bottleneck unicoloniality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams ES (1990) Boundary disputes in the territorial ant Azteca trigona: effects of asymmetries in colony size. Animal Behavior 39: 321–328Google Scholar
  2. Allen CR, Lutz RS and Demorais S (1995) Red imported fire ant impacts on northern bobwhite populations. Ecological Applications 5: 632–638Google Scholar
  3. Berlocher SH (1984) Genetic changes coinciding with the colonization of California by the walnut husk fly, Rhagoletis completa. Evolution 38: 906–918Google Scholar
  4. Bond W and Slingsby P (1984) Collapse of an ant-plant mutualism: the Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) and myrmecochorous Proteaceae. Ecology 65: 1031–1037Google Scholar
  5. Bourke AFG and Franks NR (1995) Social Evolution in Ants. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Cammel ME, Way MJ and Paiva MR (1996) Diversity and structure of ant communities associated with oak, pine, eucalyptus and arable habitats in Portugal. Insectes Sociaux 43: 37–46Google Scholar
  7. Clark DB, Guayasamín C, Pazmiño O, Donoso C and de Villacís YP (1982) The tramp ant Wasmannia auropunctata: autecology and effects on ant diversity and distribution on Santa Cruz island, Galapagos. Biotropica 14: 196–207Google Scholar
  8. Cole FR, Medeiros AC, Loope LL and Zuehlke WW (1992) Effects of the Argentine ant on arthropod fauna of Hawaiian high-elevation shrubland. Ecology 73: 1313–1322Google Scholar
  9. Crowell KL (1968) Rates of competitive exclusion by the Argentine ant in Bermuda. Ecology 49: 551–555Google Scholar
  10. De Kock AE and Giliomee JH (1989) A survey of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr), (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in south African fynbos. Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa 52: 157–164Google Scholar
  11. Eckert CG, Manicacci D and Barrett SCH (1996) Genetic drift and founder effect in native versus introduced populations of an invading plant, Lythrum salicaria (Lythraceae). Evolution 50: 1512–1519Google Scholar
  12. Elton CS (1958) The Ecology of Invasions. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Erickson JM (1971) The displacement of native ant species by the introduced Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Psyche 257–266Google Scholar
  14. Feener DH Jr (1981) Competition between ant species: outcome controlled by parasitic flies. Science 214: 815–817Google Scholar
  15. Feener DH Jr and Brown BV (1997) Diptera as parasitoids. Annual Review of Entomology 42: 73–97Google Scholar
  16. Fuentes ER (1991) Central Chile: how do introduced plants and animals fit into the landscape. In: Groves RH and Di Castri F (eds) Biogeography of Mediterranean Invasions, pp 43–49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Hölldobler B and Lumsden CJ (1980) Territorial strategies in ants. Science 210: 732–739Google Scholar
  18. Hölldobler B and Michener CD (1980) Mechanisms of identification and discrimination in social Hymenoptera. In: Markl H (ed) Evolution of Social Behavior: Hypotheses and Empirical Tests, pp 35–37. Verlag Chemie, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  19. Hölldobler B and Wilson EO (1977) The number of queens: an important trait in ant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 64: 8–15Google Scholar
  20. Hölldobler B and Wilson EO (1990) The Ants. Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Holway DA (1998a) Effects of Argentine ant invasions on ground-dwelling arthropods in northern California riparian woodlands. Oecologia 116: 252–258Google Scholar
  22. Holway DA (1998b) Factors governing rate of invasion: a natural experiment using Argentine ants. Oecologia 115: 206–212Google Scholar
  23. Holway DA (1999) Competitive mechanism underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80: 238–251Google Scholar
  24. Holway DA, Suarez AV and Case TJ (1998) Loss of intraspecific aggression in the success of a widespread invasive social insect. Science 282: 949–952Google Scholar
  25. Human KG and Gordon DM (1996) Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105: 405–412Google Scholar
  26. Keller L and Passera L (1989) Influence of the number of queens on nest-mate recognition and attractiveness of queens to workers in the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Animal Behavior 37: 733–740Google Scholar
  27. Knight RL and Rust MK (1990) The urban ants of California with distributional notes of imported species. Southwestern Entomologist 15: 167–178Google Scholar
  28. Macom TE and Porter SD (1996) Comparison of polygyne and monogyne red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) population densities. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 89: 535–543Google Scholar
  29. Majer JD (1994) Spread of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), with special reference to Western Australia. In: Williams DF (ed) Exotic Ants: Biology, Impact, and Control of Introduced Species, pp 163–173. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  30. Markin GP (1968) Nest relationship of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 41: 511–516Google Scholar
  31. Markin GP (1970) The seasonal life cycle of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in southern California. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 63: 1238–1242Google Scholar
  32. Mount RH (1981) The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), as a possible serious predator on some native southeastern vertebrates: direct observations and subjective impressions. Journal of the Alabama Academy of Sciences 52: 71–78Google Scholar
  33. Nei M (1987) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Newell W and Barber TC (1913) The Argentine ant. United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Entomology Bulletin 122, 98 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Orians GH (1986) Site characteristics favoring invasions. In: Mooney HA and Drake JA (eds) Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii, Ecological Studies 58, pp 133–145. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Orr MR, Seike SH, Benson WW and Gilbert LE (1995) Flies suppress fire ants. Nature 373: 292–293Google Scholar
  37. Orr MR, Seike SH and Gilbert LE (1997) Foraging ecology and patterns of diversification in dipteran parasitoids of fire ants in south Brazil. Ecological Entomology 22: 305–314Google Scholar
  38. Orr MR and Seike SH (1998) Parasitic flies (Diptera: Phoridae) alter the foraging success of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) in their native habitat in Brazil. Oecologia 417: 420–425Google Scholar
  39. Passera L (1994) Characteristics of tramp species. In: Williams DF (ed) Exotic Ants: Biology, Impact, and Control of Introduced Species, pp 23–43. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  40. Passera L and Aron S (1993) Social control over the survival and selection of winged virgin queens in an ant without nuptial flight, Iridomyrmex humilis. Ethology 93: 225–235Google Scholar
  41. Pimm SL (1991) The Balance of Nature: Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  42. Porter SD and Savignano DA (1990) Invasion of polygyne fire ants decimates native ants and disrupts arthropod community. Ecology 71: 2095–2106Google Scholar
  43. Porter SD, Fowler HG, and Mackay WP (1992) Fire ant mound densities in the United States and Brazil (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 85: 1154–1161Google Scholar
  44. Porter SD, Williams DF, Patterson RS and Fowler HJ (1997) Intercontinental differences in the abundance of Solenopsis fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): escape from natural enemies? Ecological Entomology 26: 373–384Google Scholar
  45. Ross KG and Keller L (1995) Ecology and evolution of social organization: insights from fire ants and other highly eusocial insects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 631–656Google Scholar
  46. Ross KG, Vargo EL and Fletcher DJC (1987) Comparative biochemical genetics of three fire ant species in North America, with special reference to the two social forms of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Evolution 41: 979–990Google Scholar
  47. Ross KG, Vargo EL, Keller L and Trager JC (1993) Effect of a founder event on variation in the genetic sex-determining system of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. Genetics 135: 843–854Google Scholar
  48. Ross KG, Vargo EL and Keller L (1996) Social evolution in a new environment: the case of introduced fire ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 93: 3021–3025Google Scholar
  49. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF and Maniatis T (1987) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, Second edition. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NYGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith MR (1936) Distribution of the Argentine ant in the United States and suggestions for its control or eradication. United States Department of Agriculture, Circular 387. Washington, DC, 40 ppGoogle Scholar
  51. Suarez AV, Bolger DT and Case TJ (1998) Effects of fragmentation and invasion on native ant communities in coastal southern California. Ecology 79: 2041–2056Google Scholar
  52. Suarez AV, Richmond JQ and Case TJ (1999) Prey selection in horned lizards following the invasion of Argentine ants in southern California. Ecological Applications (in press)Google Scholar
  53. Tremper BD (1976) Distribution of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr, in relation to certain native ants of California: ecological, physiological, and behavioral aspects. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 260 ppGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Loon AJ, Boomsma JJ and Andrasfalvy A (1990) A new polygynous Lasius species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from central Europe. 1. Description and general biology. Insectes Sociaux 37: 348–362Google Scholar
  55. Vander Meer RK, Jaffe K and Cedeno A (eds) (1990) Applied Myrmecology: A World Perspective. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  56. Vinson SB (ed) (1986) Economic Impact and Control of Social Insects. Praeger Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Ward PS (1987) Distribution of the introduced Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) in natural habitats of the lower Sacramento Valley and its effects on the indigenous ant fauna. Hilgardia 55: 1–16Google Scholar
  58. Williams DF (ed) (1994) Exotic Ants: Biology, Impact, and Control of Introduced Species. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 332 ppGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodworth CW (1908) The Argentine ant in California. University of California Agricultural Experiment Station 38: 1–192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew V. Suarez
    • 1
  • Neil D. Tsutsui
    • 1
  • David A. Holway
    • 1
  • Ted J. Case
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology 0116University of California at San DiegoLa JollaUSA (e-mail

Personalised recommendations