Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ants on oaks: effects of forest structure on species composition

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ant fauna of oak forest canopies in Northern Bavaria was studied by canopy fogging on 45 trees in August 2000 and May 2001. The study focused on a comparison of several different forestry management practices resulting in several types of canopy cover. Forests surveyed were: (1) high forest (high canopy cover), (2) coppice with standards (low canopy cover), (3) forest pasture with mostly solitary trees (very low canopy cover) and (4) transitional forest from former coppice with standards to high forest (approaching high canopy cover). This comprised a full gradient of canopy coverage. On the 45 oak trees sampled, a total of 17 ant species were found. Species composition was dependent on the different forestry management practices. The total number of species and the number of species listed in the Red Data Books of both Germany and Bavaria were much higher in the forest pasture and the coppice with standards, as compared to the high forest. The transitional forest was at an intermediate level. The highest number of ant species was found in the forest pasture. This can be explained by the occurrence of species of open habitats and thermophilous species. In the coppice with standards, forest dwelling and arboricolous species dominated, whereas the high forest showed much lower frequencies of arboricolous species like Temnothorax corticalis, Dolichoderus quadripunctatus and Temnothorax affinis. A multivariate analysis revealed that canopy cover (measured as “shade”, in percentage intervals of canopy cover) was the best parameter for explaining species distribution and dataset variation, and to a lesser extent the amount of dead wood, canopy and trunk diameter. Thus ant fauna composition was mostly driven by structural differences associated to the different forestry management practices. Many ant species clearly preferred the more open and light forest stands of the coppice with standards as compared to the dense and shady high forest.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achtziger R, Nigmann U, Richert E, Scholze W (1999) Ökologische Untersuchungen zur Erfolgskontrolle und naturschutzfachlichen Bewertung von Streuobstbeständen – Durchführungskonzept und erste Ergebnisse. Ber Bayer LfU 150:227–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Adis J, Harada YY, Fonseca CRD, Paarmann PM, Rafael JA (1998) Arthropods obtained from the Amazonian tree species “Cupiuba” Gouipa glabra by repated canopy fogging with natural pyrethrum. Acta Amazonica 28:273–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Basset Y, Novotny V, Miller S, Kitching R (2003) Arthropods of tropical forests: spatio-temporal dynamics and resource use in the canopy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokor Z (1993) Soil fauna studies in a beech forest II. Comparative studies on soil invertebrates in a forest, forest margin and a clear-cut area in Hungary. Acta Biol Szeged 39:77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolz R (2008) The diversity of moths communities (Macrolepidoptera: Bombyces, Sphinges, Noctuidae et Geometridae) in different structured oak-hornbeam forests – a comparison of different states of succession in coppice with standard and forests with high standard trees. In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Central Europe: basic and applied studies from the high frontier. Bioform, Nürnberg (in press)

  • Buschinger A (1993) Die Ameisenfauna einer alten Eiche. Ameisenschutz aktuell 7:30–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Buschinger A (2004) Kommentar zu “Ameisen oben auf: Vergleich der Ameisenfauna zwischen Baumkronen und Waldboden von Eichenmischwäldern und Mittelwäldern” von J. Müller & H. Schlumprecht. Ameisenschutz aktuell 18:42–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Czechowski W, Radchenko A, Czechowska W (2002) The ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Poland. Museum and Institute of Zoology PAS, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DW, Cook SC, Snelling RR, Chua TH (2003) Explaining the abundance of ants in lowland tropical rainforest canopies. Science 300:969–972

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eichhorn O (1971) Zur Verbreitung und Ökologie der Ameisen der Hauptwaldtypen mitteleuropäischer Gebirgswälder. Z Angew Entomol 67:170–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin TL, Scott JC (1980) Seasonal and size patterns, trophic structure, and richness of coleoptera in the tropical arboreal ecosystem: the fauna of the tree Luehea seemannii Triana and Planch in the canal zone of Panama. Coleoperist‘s Bull 34:305–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Floren A (2005) How reliable are data on arboreal ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) communities collected by insecticidal fogging? Myrmecol Nachr 7:91–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Floren A, Linsenmair KE (1997) Diversity and recolonisation dynamics of selected arthropod groups on different tree species in a lowland rain forest in Sabah, Malaysia with special reference to Formicidae. In: Stork NE, Adis JA, Didham RK (eds) Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Floren A, Schmidl J (1999) Faunistisch-ökologische Ergebnisse eines Baumkronen-Benebelungsprojektes in einem Eichenhochwald des Steigerwaldes. Beitr z bayer Enomofaunistik 3:179–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Floren A, Schmidl J (2003) Die Baumkronenbenebelung. Eine Methode zur Erfassung arborikoler Lebensgemeinschaften. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 35(3):69–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) (2008) Canopy arthropod research in Central Europe: basic and applied studies from the high frontier. Bioform, Nürnberg (in press)

  • Häusler A, Dolek M, Güthler W, Market R (2008) Conservation efforts and strategies for forest canopies in Germany: a review of conservation programmes. In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Central Europe: basic and applied studies from the high frontier. Bioform, Nürnberg (in press)

  • Horstmann K, Floren A, Linsenmair KE (1999) High species-richness of Ichneumonidae from the canopy of a Malaysian rain forest. Ecotropica 5:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Jongman RHG, Ter Braak CJF, Van Tongeren OFR (eds) (1995) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Müller-Schulte E, Kneitz G (1998) Standardisierte Rasterelektronenmikroskopische Aufnahmen zum Vergleich wichtiger taxonomischer Merkmale der in Deutschland vorkommenden Myrmica-Species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomol Gener 23(3):195–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutter H (1977) Hymenoptera, Formicidae. Insecta Helvetica 6. Fotorotar AG, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutter H (1978) Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Ergänzungsband. Insecta Helvetica 6a. Fotorotar AG, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Liegl A, Dolek M (2008) Conservation of coppice with standards for canopy arthropods: the Bavarian Conservation Programme for forests. In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Central Europe: basic and applied studies from the high frontier. Bioform, Nürnberg (in press)

  • Linsenmair KE, Davis AJ, Fiala B, Speight MR (2001) Tropical forest canopies: ecology and management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer P, Ackermann J et al (2001) Untersuchungen der Waldstruktur und ihrer Dynamik in Naturwaldreservaten. IHW-Verlag, Eching

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller J, Schlumprecht H (2004) Ameisen oben auf: Vergleich der Ameisenfauna zwischen Baumkronen und Waldboden von Eichenmischwäldern und Mittelwäldern. Ameisenschutz aktuell 18(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Münch W (1983) Die Ameisen der Tübinger Neuhalde, eine faunistisch-ökologische Bestandsaufnahme der Nestdichten. Veröff Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Bad-Württ 57/58:305–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Münch W (1997) Ameisen und Laufkäfer von Wacholderheide und sonstigen Kalkmagerstandorten der Schwäbischen Alb – Vorläufige Ergebnisse. Veröff Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Bad-Württ 71/72(2):513–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemela J, Haila Y, Punttila P (1996) The importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest floor invertebrates across the succession gradient. Ecography 19(3):352–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Projektgruppe Artenschutz im Wald (2000) Artenvielfalt in verschiedenen Waldtypen und die Habitatbindung ausgewählter Charakterarten. Report, Bayer Landesamt für Umweltschutz, Augsburg

  • Projektgruppe Artenschutz im Wald (2001) Artenvielfalt in verschiedenen Waldtypen und die Habitatbindung ausgewählter Charakterarten. Report, Bayer Landesamt für Umweltschutz, Augsburg

  • Punttila P (1996) Succession, forest fragmentation, and the distribution of wood ants. Oikos 75:291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punttila P, Haila Y, Pajunen T, Tukia H (1991) Colonisation of clearcut forests by ants in the southern Finnish taiga: a quantitative survey. Oikos 61:250–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punttila P, Haila Y, Niemelä J, Pajunen T (1994) Ant communities in fragments of old-growth taiga and managed surroundings. Ann Zool Fenn 31:131–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauh J (1993) Faunistisch-ökologische Bewertung von Naturwaldreservaten anhand repräsentativer Tiergruppen. Naturwaldreservate in Bayern, Freising

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM, Steiner HM (2005) Effect of extensification of coppice management on Central European ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomol Gener 28(1):23–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidl J, Bussler H (2008) Canopy openness and forest management as determinants of xylobiontic beetle guild composition and diversity in coppice forests. In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Central Europe: basic and applied studies from the high frontier. Bioform, Nürnberg (in press)

  • Seifert B (1982) Die Ameisenfauna (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) einer Rasen-Wald-Catena im Leutratal bei Jena. Abh Ber Naturkundemus Görlitz 56(6):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert B (1986) Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Habitatwahl von Ameisen (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) im mittleren und südlichen Teil der DDR. Abh Ber Naturkundemus Görlitz 59(5):1–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert B (1993) Die freilebenden Ameisenarten Deutschlands (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) und Angaben zu deren Taxonomie und Verbreitung. Abh Ber Naturkundemus Görlitz 67(3):1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert B (1996) Ameisen beobachten, bestimmen. Naturbuch Verlag, Augsburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert B (1997) Formica lusatica n. sp. – a new sibling species of Formica cunicularia und Formica rufibarbis (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Abh Ber Naturkundemus Görlitz 69(5):3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert B (1998) Rote Liste der Ameisen (Hymenoptera: Ameisen) Deutschlands. In: Binot M, Bless R, Boye P, Gruttke H, Pretscher P (eds) Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere Deutschlands. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert B (2007) Die Ameisen Mittel- und Nordeuropas. Lutra Verlags- und Vertriebsgesellschaft, Tauer

  • Seifert B (2008) The ants of Central European tree canopies (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) – an underestimated population? In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Europe: basic and applied studies from the high frontier. Bioform entomology, Nuremberg (in press)

  • Sonnenburg H (1996) Die Ameisenfauna (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) von Streuobstwiesen bei Rastatt (Baden). Carolinea 54:139–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenburg H, Behr D (1995) Die Ameisenfauna (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) der Streuobstwiesen bei Wehlen (Kreis Bernkastel-Wittlich) mit weiteren Funden aus dem Moselgebiet. Dendrocops 22:90–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwood TRE, Moran VC, Kennedy CEE (1982a) The assessment of arboreal insect fauna: comparisons of knockdown sampling and faunal lists. Ecol Entomol 7:331–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southwood TRE, Moran VC, Kennedy CEE (1982b) The richness, abundance and biomass of the arthropod communities on trees. J Anim Ecol 51:635–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stork NE, Hammond PM (1997) Sampling arthropods from tree-crowns by fogging with knock-down insecticides: lessons from studies of oak tree beetle assemblages in Richmond Park (UK). In: Stork NE, Adis J, Didham RK (eds) Canopy arthropods. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturm P, Distler H (2003) Rote Liste gefährdeter Ameisen (Hymenoptera: Formicoidea) Bayerns. Schriftenr Bayer LfU 166:208–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin JE (1995) Ecology and diversity of tropical forest canopy ants. In: Lowman MD, Nadkarni NM (eds) Forest canopies. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • von der Dunk K, Schmidl J (2008) Diptera in coppice forest canopies – diversity and community structure changes driven by management impact. In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Central Europe: basic and applied studies from the high frontier. Bioform, Nürnberg (in press)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was conducted on behalf of „Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt“ (LfU) in Augsburg. We take pleasure in thanking all forest owners and users for their permission to work in their forests. The official permission to conduct the study was granted by „Regierung von Mittelfranken“.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Alois Liegl

    Present address: Regierung von Schwaben, Fronhof 10, 86145, Augsburg, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Büro für ökologische Forschung und Planung, Geyer und Dolek, Burgstr. 15, 95463, Bindlach, Germany

    Matthias Dolek & Anja Freese-Hager

  2. Am Greifenkeller 1, 91555, Feuchtwangen, Germany

    Heinz Bussler

  3. Departments of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074, Würzburg, Germany

    Andreas Floren

  4. Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Bgm.-Ulrich-Str. 160, 86179, Augsburg, Germany

    Alois Liegl

  5. Ecology, Landscape & Nature Conservation group, Department for Biology/Developmental Biology Institute, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Staudtstr. 5, 91058, Erlangen, Germany

    Jürgen Schmidl

Authors
  1. Matthias Dolek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anja Freese-Hager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heinz Bussler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Floren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alois Liegl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jürgen Schmidl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Dolek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dolek, M., Freese-Hager, A., Bussler, H. et al. Ants on oaks: effects of forest structure on species composition. J Insect Conserv 13, 367–375 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-008-9181-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-008-9181-2

Key words

Search

Navigation