Temporal patterns of diversity: assessing the biotic and abiotic controls on ant assemblages

Abstract

In this study, we use 12 months of data from 11 ant assemblages to test whether seasonal variation in ant diversity is governed by either the structuring influences of interspecific competition or environmental conditions. Because the importance of competition might vary along environmental gradients, we also test whether the signature of competition depends on elevation. We find little evidence that competition structures the seasonal patterns of activity in the ant assemblages considered, but find support for the effects of temperature on seasonal patterns of diversity, especially at low-elevation sites. Although, in general, both competition and the environment interact to structure ant assemblages, our results suggest that environmental conditions are the primary force structuring the seasonal activity of the ant assemblages studied here.

Seasonal activity of Dinoponera quadriceps Santschi (Formicidae, Ponerinae) in the semi-arid Caatinga of northeastern Brazil

“…Foraging is the most common behavior displayed by D. quadriceps outside the nest, accounting for more than 90% of extra-nest time (Araújo & Rodrigues 2006). Thus, the worker capture rate in pitfall traps is mostly linked to their foraging activity in the ecosystem, whereas, if more workers are foraging outside the nest, the likelihood of more individuals falling into the pitfall traps increases (Dunn et al 2007).…”

“…Workers search for food individually or in groups, with intermediate strategies between the two extremes (Beckers et al 1989). Nevertheless, whatever the type of foraging adopted by ants, their foraging activity levels throughout the year depend on many factors that vary seasonally, such as temperature (Abril et al 2007;Domisch et al 2009;Dunn et al 2007;Pol & Lopez de Casenave 2004;Vogt et al 2003), humidity (Fotso Kuate et al 2008;Levings 1983) and food availability (Cogni & Oliveira 2004;Peeters & Crewe 1987;Raimundo et al 2009). Because ants are ectothermic, temperature and hydric stress are physical factors that may affect energetic costs of foraging, limiting activity outside the nest to suitable periods (Levings 1983;Traniello 1989).…”

Ecological differentiation among key plant mutualists from a cryptic ant guild

“…(Umphrey, 1996). For Aphaenogaster species, and ants in general, habitat partitioning appears to be driven by temperature (Brian, 1956;Bernstein, 1979;Lynch et al, 1980;Smallwood, 1982a;Cerdà et al, 1997;Retana and Cerda, 2000;Dunn et al, 2007;Sanders et al, 2007), but moisture also plays a role (Cerdà et al, 1997;Warren et al, 2010). Whereas spatial and temporal habitat partitioning is common among ant species (see Parr and Gibb, 2010), little is known about species partitioning within genera (e.g., Brian, 1956).…”

The ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) communities of the central interior of British Columbia: Adaptations to a temperature-constrained environment.

“…These data may be calculated from tallies of total individuals or from simple presence-absence (incidence) observations. It is common in the myrmecological literature for tallies of total individuals captured to be used to derive relative abundance data Bestelmeyer et al 2000;Parr and Chown 2001;Wang et al 2001b;Schowalter et al 2003;Borgelt and New 2005;Dunn et al 2007). The natural history of ant species and the manner in which they are distributed in the environment, however, should make myrmecologists wary of this approach.…”

“…To date, this problem has not been widely recognized in the context of pitfall traps, but it is of critical importance if consideration is given to relative abundance values based on the number of individual ants captured by pitfall traps as is frequently done Bestelmeyer et al 2000;Dunn et al 2007). …”