Abstract
Habitat complexity can mediate key processes that structure local assemblages through effects on factors such as competition, predation and foraging behaviour. While most studies address assemblage responses to habitat complexity within one locality, a more global approach allows conclusions with greater independence from the phylogenetic constraints of the target assemblages, thus allowing greater generality. We tested the effects of natural and manipulated habitat complexities on ant assemblages from South Africa, Australia and Sweden, in order to determine if there were globally consistent responses in how functional measures of foraging success are regulated by habitat complexity. Specifically, we considered how habitat complexity affected ant foraging rates including the speed of discovery and rate of monopolisation. We also tested if habitat complexity affected the body size index, a size-related morphological trait, of ants discovering resources and occupying and monopolising the resources after 180 min. Ants were significantly slower to discover baits in the more complex treatments, consistent with predictions that they would move more slowly through more complex environments. The monopolisation index was also lower in the more complex treatments, suggesting that resources were more difficult to defend. Our index of ant body size showed trends in the predicted direction for complexity treatments. In addition, ants discovering, occupying and monopolising resources were smaller in simple than in complex natural habitats. Responses of discovering ants to resources in natural habitats were clear in only one of three regions. Consistent with our predictions, habitat complexity thus affected functional measures of the foraging success of ants in terms of measures of discovery and monopolisation rates and body size traits of successful ants. However, patterns were not always equally clear in manipulative and mensurative components of the study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersen AN (2000) A global ecology of rainforest ants: functional groups in relation to environmental stress and disturbance. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR (eds) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 25–34
Andruskiw M, Fryxell JM, Thompson ID, Baker JA (2008) Habitat-mediated variation in predation risk by the American marten. Ecology 89:2273–2280
Aviron S, Burel F, Baudry J, Schermann N (2005) Carabid assemblages in agricultural landscapes: impacts of habitat features, landscape context at different spatial scales and farming intensity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:205–217
Barton P, Manning AD, Gibb H, Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham SA (2009) Conserving ground-dwelling beetles in an endangered woodland community: multi-scale habitat effects on assemblage diversity. Biol Cons 142:1701–1709
Blüthgen N, Fiedler K (2004) Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities. Ecology 85:1479–1485
Carroll CR, Janzen DH (1973) Ecology of foraging by ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:231–251
Cerdá X, Retana J, Manzaneda A (1998) The role of competition by dominants and temperature in the foraging of subordinate species in Mediterranean ant communities. Oecologia 117:404–412
Farji-Brener AG, Barrantes G, Ruggiero A (2004) Environmental rugosity, body size and access to food: a test of the size-grain hypothesis in tropical litter ants. Oikos 104:165–171
Fewell JH (1988) Energetic and time costs of foraging in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:401–408
Finke DL, Denno RF (2002) Intraguild predation diminished in complex-structured vegetation: implications for prey suppression. Ecology 83:643–652
Gibb H (2005) The effect of a dominant ant, Iridomyrmex purpureus, on resource use by ant assemblages depends on microhabitat and resource type. Aust Ecol 30:856–867
Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2004) Removal experiment reveals limited effects of a behaviourally dominant species on ant assemblages. Ecology 85:648–657
Gibb H, Hilszczański J, Hjältén J, Danell K, Ball JP, Pettersson RB, Atlegrim O (2008) Responses of parasitoids to saproxylic hosts and habitat: a multi-scale study using experimental logs. Oecologia 155:63–74
Gols R, Bukovinszky T, Hemerik L, Harvey JA, Van Lenteren JC, Vet LEM (2005) Reduced foraging efficiency of a parasitoid under habitat complexity: implications for population stability and species coexistence. J Anim Ecol 74:1059–1068
Gray SJ, Jensen SP, Hurst JL (2000) Structural complexity of territories: preference, use of space and defence in commensal house mice, Mus domesticus. Anim Behav 60:765–772
Hampton SE (2004) Habitat overlap of enemies: temporal patterns and the role of spatial complexity. Oecologia 138:475–484
Hasegawa K, Maekawa K (2008) Potential of habitat complexity for mitigating interference competition between native and non-native salmonid species. Can J Zool 86:386–393
Hojesjo J, Johnsson J, Bohlin T (2004) Habitat complexity reduced the growth of aggressive and dominant brown trout Salmo trutta relative to subordinates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:286–289
Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap, Cambridge, MA
Hurlbert AH, Ballantyne F, Powell S (2008) Shaking a leg and hot to trot: the effects of body size and temperature on running speed in ants. Ecol Entomol 33:144–154
Institute SAS (2007) JMP version 7. SAS Institute, Cary, NC
Kaspari M (1993) Removal of seeds from neotropical frugivore droppings ant responses to seed number. Oecologia 95:81–88
Kaspari M, Weiser MD (1999) The size-grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants. Funct Ecol 13:530–538
Lassau SA, Hochuli DF (2004) Effects of habitat complexity on ant assemblages. Ecography 27:157–164
LeBrun EG (2005) Who is the top dog in ant communities? Resources, parasitoids, and multiple competitive hierarchies. Oecologia 142:643–652
Mandelbrot B (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, San Francisco, CA
Morrison LW (1999) Indirect effects of phorid fly parasitoids on the mechanisms of interspecific competition among ants. Oecologia 121:113–122
Morse D, Lawton J, Dodson M, Williamson M (1985) Fractal dimension of vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body lengths. Nature 314:731–733
Palmer T (2003) Spatial habitat heterogeneity influences competition and coexistence in an African acacia ant guild. Ecology 84:2843–2855
Parr CL (2008) Dominant ants can control assemblage species richness in a South African savanna. J Anim Ecol 77:1191–1198
Parr ZJE, Parr CL, Chown SL (2003) The size-grain hypothesis: a phylogenetic and field test. Ecol Entomol 28:475–481
Parr CL, Andersen AN, Chastagnol C, Duffaud C (2007) Savanna fires increase rates and distances of seed dispersal by ants. Oecologia 151:33–41
Patterson HD, Thompson R (1974) Maximum likelihood estimation of components of variance. Proceedings of eighth international biochemistry conference, pp 197–209
Petren K, Case TJ (1998) Habitat structure determines competition intensity and invasion success in gecko lizards. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:11739–11744
Pontin AJ (1969) Experimental transplantation of nest-mounds of the ant Lasius flavus F in a habitat containing also L niger L and Myrmica scabrinodis Nyl. J Anim Ecol 38:747–754
Sanders NJ, Gordon DM (2003) Resource-dependent interactions and the organization of desert ant communities. Ecology 84:1024–1031
Sarty M, Abbott KL, Lester PJ (2006) Habitat complexity facilitates coexistence in a tropical ant community. Oecologia 149:465–473
Savolainen R, Vepsalainen K (1988) A competition hierarchy among boreal ants impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51:135–155
Savolainen R, Vepsäläinen K, Wuorenrinne H (1989) Ant assemblages in the taiga biome: testing the role of territorial wood ants. Oecologia 81:481–486
Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE (1992) Variance components. Wiley, New York
Srivastava DS (2006) Habitat structure, trophic structure and ecosystem function: interactive effects in a bromeliad-insect community. Oecologia 149:493–504
Thomas ML, Holway DA (2005) Condition-specific competition between invasive Argentine ants and Australian Iridomyrmex. J Anim Ecol 74:532–542
Wilkinson EB, Feener DH (2007) Habitat complexity modifies ant-parasitoid interactions: implications for community dynamics and the role of disturbance. Oecologia 152:151–161
Williams SE, Marsh H, Winter J (2002) Spatial scale, species diversity and habitat structure: small mammals in Australian tropical rainforest. Ecology 83:1317–1329
Wolfinger R, Tobias R, Sall J (1994) Computing Gaussian likelihoods and their derivatives for general linear mixed models. SIAM J Sci Comput 15:1294–1310
Yanoviak SP, Kaspari M (2000) Community structure and the habitat templet: ants in the tropical forest canopy and litter. Oikos 89:259–266
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Trapnell Fund, the British Ecological Society and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. We thank T. Retief, M. Wege, V. Ndluvo, R. Thethe and E. Finlay for field work assistance and Å. Nordström for the experimental equipment. We are grateful to D. Warton and A. Haslem for their advice on the statistical analyses and D. Holway for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Roland Brandl.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gibb, H., Parr, C.L. How does habitat complexity affect ant foraging success? A test using functional measures on three continents. Oecologia 164, 1061–1073 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1703-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1703-4