Entomological Review

, Volume 97, Issue 6, pp 747–767 | Cite as

Interactions of three dominant ant species, Lasius emarginatus (Ol.), Formica rufa L., and Lasius fuliginosus (Latr.) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) among themselves and with subordinate species in broadleaf forests. Communication 1

  • S. V. Stukalyuk


Territoriality of three dominant ant species: Formica rufa L., Lasius fuliginosus (Latreille), and Lasius emarginatus (Olivier), was studied in July and August 2013–2015 in the broadleaf forest areas in Kiev, Ukraine. Thirteen species of ants were found on the soil surface, including 4 subdominants and 5 influents. Subordinate species co-occurred in the plots with L. emarginatus 1.5–2.0 times as frequently as with L. fuliginosus, and at least 3.0 times as frequently as with F. rufa. From 2 (within the foraging territory of the nest complex) to 5 ant species (in the territories of single colonies) were found together with F. rufa. Eight ant species co-occurred with L. fuliginosus and L. emarginatus each, and 7 species, i.e., nearly the same number, were found in the areas without dominants. The dominant ant species can be arranged in ascending order of territoriality as follows: L. emarginatus < L. fuliginosus + F. rufa (single colonies) < F. rufa (nest complex).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akino, T. and Yamaoka, R., “Trunk Trail Network of Lasius fuliginosus Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Distribution between Conspecific Neighboring Colonies,” Entomological Science 2 (3), 341–346 (1999).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayre, G.L., “Der Einfluss von Insektennabrung auf das Wachstum von Waldameisenvölkern,” Naturwissenschaften 21 502–503, (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgov, E.V., “The Multispecies Formicary Association: the Transition from an Incomplete to a Complete Association,” Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 94 (10), 1200–1210 (2015) [Entomological Review 95 (8), 1010–1020 (2015)].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cerdá, X., Arnan, X., and Retana, J., “Is Competition a Significant Hallmark of Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Ecology?” Myrmecological News 18 131–147, (2013).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole, B.J., “Assembly of Mangrove Ant Communities: Colonization Abilities,” Journal of Animal Ecology 52 349–355, (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czechowski, W., “Lasius fuliginosus (Latr.) on a Sandy Dune–Its Living Conditions and Interference during Raids of Formica sanguinea Latr. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae),” Annales Zoologici 49 117–123, (1999).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czechowski, W., “Lasius fuliginosus (Latr.) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) fakultatywnym myrmekofagiem,” Przegląd Zoologiczny 46 243–246, (2002).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Czechowski, W., Radchenko, A., and Czechowska, W., The Ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Poland (Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 2002).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Czechowski, W., Radchenko, A., Czechowska, W., and Vepsäläinen, K., The Ants of Poland with Reference to the Myrmecofauna of Europe: Fauna Poloniae (New Series) (Natura Optima Dux Foundation, Warszawa, 2012).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Czechowski, W., Markó, B., Radchenko, A., and Ślipiński, P., “Long-Term Partitioning of Space between Two Territorial Species of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Their Effect on Subordinate Species,” European Journal of Entomology 110 (2), 327–337 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davidson, D.-W., “Resource Discovery versus Resource Domination in Ants: A Functional Mechanism for Breaking the Trade-off,” Ecological Entomology 23 484–490, (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dlussky, G.M., “The Protected Territory in Ants,” Zhurnal Obshchei Ekologii 26 (4), 479–488 (1965).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dlussky, G.M., Ants of the Genus Formica (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) (Nauka, Moscow, 1967) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dlussky, G.M., The Desert Ants (Nauka, Moscow, 1981) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goncharenko, І.V., Іhnatyuk, O.A., and Shelyag-Sosonko, Yu.P., “Forest Vegetation of the Feofanіya Landscape Memorial and Its Anthropogenic Transformation,” Ecology and Noospherology 24 (3–4), 51–63 (2013).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenslade, P.J.M., “Interspecific Competition and Frequency Changes among Ants in Solomon Islands Coconut Plantations,” Journal of Applied Ecology 8 (2), 323–352 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hölldobler, B., “Recruitment Behavior, Home Range Orientation and Territoriality in Harvesting Ants,” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1 3–44, (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hölldobler, B., “Territorial Behavior in the Green Tree Ant (Oecophylla smaragdina),” Biotropica 15 (4), 241–250 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hölldobler, B. and Lumsden, C., “Territorial Strategies in Ants,” Science 210 (4471), 732–739 (1980).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O., “Weaver Ants: Social Establishment and Maintenance of Territory,” Science 195 900–902, (1977).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O., The Ants (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ihnatiuk, O.A. and Stukalyuk, S.V., “Degradation Changes in the Structure of Multispecies Associations of Ants in Urbanized Areas,” Russian Journal of Ecology 46 (1), 109–115 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaczmarek, W., “Badania nad zespołami mrówek leśnych,” Ekologia Polska 1 (2), 69–96 (1953).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mabelis, A.A., “Wood Ant Wars: the Relationship between Aggression and Predation in the Red Wood Ant (Formica polyctena Först.),” Netherlands Journal of Zoology 29 451–620, (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marikovsky, P.I., “On Intraspecific Relations of the Red Wood Ant Formica rufa L. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae),” Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 41 (1), 83–93 (1962).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Markó, B., Czechowski, W., and Radchenko, A., “Combining Competition with Predation: Drastic Effect of Lasius fuliginosus (Latr.) on Subordinate Ant Species at the Northern Limit of Its Distribution,” Annales Zoologici 63 107–111, (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mershchiev, A.V., Candidate’s Dissertation in Biology (Moscow, 2010).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peral, G.T., Markó, B., Babik, H., Tăuşan, I., Maák, I., Pálfi, Z., Ślipiński, P., Czekes, Z., and Czechowski, W., “Differential Impact of Two Dominant Formica Ant Species (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) on Subordinates in Temperate Europe,” Journal of Hymenoptera Research 50 97–116, (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petráková, L. and Schlagamerský, J., “Interactions between Liometopum microcephalum (Formicidae) and Other Dominant Ant Species of Sympatric Occurrence,” Community Ecology 12 (1), 9–17 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pfeiffer, M., Tuck, H.C., and Lay, T.C., Exploring Arboreal Ant Community Composition and Co-occurrence Patterns in Plantations of Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis) in Borneo and Peninsular Malaysia. Structuring of Animal Communities: Interspecific Interactions and Habitat Selection among Ants and Small Mammals (Institute for Experimental Ecology, University of Ulm, Ulm, 2007).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Punttila, P., Haila, Y., Pajunen, T., and Tukia, H., “Ant Communities in Taiga Clearcuts: Habitat Effects and Species Interactions,” Ecography 19 16–28, (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quinet, Y. and Pasteels, J.M., “Spatiotemporal Evolution of the Trail Network in Lasius fuliginosus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae),” Belgian Journal of Zoology 121 (1), 55–72 (1991).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Quinet, Y. and Pasteels, J.M., “Spatial Specialization of the Foragers and Foraging Strategy in Lasius fuliginosus (Latreille) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae),” Insectes Sociaux 43 333–346, (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quinet, Y., De Biseau, J.-C., and Pasteels, J.M., “Food Recruitment as a Component of the Trunk-Trail Foraging Behaviour of Lasius fuliginosus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae),” Behavioural Processes 40 75–83, (1997).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Radchenko, A.G., Ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Ukraine (Institute for Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, 2016) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reznikova, Zh.I., Interspecific Interactions in Ants (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1983) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Room, P.M., “The Relative Distributions of Ant Species in Ghana’s Cocoa Farms,” Journal of Animal Ecology 40 (3), 735–751 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosengren, R., “Route Fidelity, Visual Memory and Recruitment Behaviour in Foraging Wood Ants of the Genus Formica,” Acta Zoologicae Fennici 133 1–106, (1971).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Savolainen, R., “Interference by Wood Ant Influences Size Selection and Retrieval Rate of Prey by Formica fusca,” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28 1–7, (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Savolainen, R. and Vepsäläinen, K., “A Competition Hierarchy among Boreal Ants: Impact on Resource Partitioning and Community Structure,” Oikos 51 135–155, (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Savolainen, R. and Vepsäläinen, K., “Niche Differentiation of Ant Species within Territories of the Wood Ant Formica polyctena,” Oikos 56 3–16, (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Savolainen, R., Vepsäläinen, K., and Wuorenrinne, H., “Ant Assemblages in the Taiga Biome: Testing the Role of Territorial Wood Ants,” Oecologia 81 481–486, (1989).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Seima, F.A., The Structure of the Taiga Ant Population (Perm State University, Perm, 2008) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ślipinski, P., Markó, B., Rzeszowski, K., Babik, H., and Czechowski, W., “Lasius fuliginosus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Shapes Local Ant Assemblages,” North-Western Journal of Zoology 10 (2), 404–412 (2014).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sorvari, J. and Hakkarainen, H., “Habitat-Related Aggressive Behaviour between Neighbouring Colonies of the Polydomous Wood Ant Formica aquilonia,” Animal Behaviour 67 151–153, (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stukalyuk, S.V., “Structure of the Ant Assemblages (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in the Broad-Leaved Forests of Kiev,” Entomological Review 95 (3), 370–387 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stukalyuk, S.V. and Radchenko, V.G., “Structure of Multi-Species Ant Assemblages (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in the Mountain Crimea,” Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 89 (3), 532–560 (2010) [Entomological Review 91 (1), 15–36 (2011)].Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sudd, J.H. and Sudd, M.E., “Seasonal Changes in the Response of Wood-Ants (Formica lugubris) to Sucrose Baits,” Ecological Entomology 10 89–97, (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vepsäläinen, K. and Czechowski, W., “Against the Odds of the Ant Competition Hierarchy: Submissive Myrmica rugulosa Block Access of the Dominant Lasius fuliginosus to Its Aphids,” Insectes Sociaux 61 89–93, (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vepsäläinen, K. and Pisarski, B., “Assembly of Island Ant Communities,” Annales Zoologici Fennici 19 327–335, (1982).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vepsäläinen, K., Savolainen, R., Tiainen, J., and Vilén, J., “Successional Changes of Ants Assemblages from Virgin and Ditched Bogs to Forest,” Annales Zoologici Fennici 37 135–149, (2000).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wilson, E.O., Dillier, J.H., and Markin, G.P., “Foraging Territories of Imported Fire Ants,” Annals of the Entomological Society of America 64 660–665, (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zakharov, A.A., Organization of Ant Communities (Nauka, Moscow, 1991) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zakharov, A.A., “The Structure of Ant Communities in the Tonga and Western Samoa Islands,” in The Fauna of Southwestern Oceania (Nauka, Moscow, 1994), pp. 94–142 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zakharov, A.A., Ants in the Forest Associations (KMK Scientific Press, Moscow, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zakharov, A.A. and Goryunov, D.N., “General Methods of Field Ecological Research,” in Ants and Forest Protection: Proceedings of the XIII All-Russian Myrmecological Symposium (2009), pp. 247–255.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zakharov, A.A. and Sablin-Yavorsky, A.D., “Ants in the Biodiversity Studies,” Uspekhi Sovremennoi Biologii 118 (3), 246–265 (1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Evolutionary EcologyNational Academy of Sciences of UkraineKievUkraine

Personalised recommendations