Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T17:03:24.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Interspecific competition and coexistence between wood ants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

By
Therese Johansson  and
Heloise Gibb
Edited by
Jenni A. Stockan  and
Elva J. H. Robinson
Therese Johansson
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
Heloise Gibb
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Jenni A. Stockan
Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute
Elva J. H. Robinson
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

Competition among or within species has long been considered one of the most fundamental processes shaping ecological communities, affecting distributions and the evolution of species. While its importance and detectability are strongly debated (Schaffer et al. 1979; Schoener 1982; Connell 1983; Schoener 1983), its role in structuring ant assemblages has often been uncritically accepted and competition is even referred to as ‘the hallmark of ant ecology’ (Hölldobler and Wilson 1991). Competition between species, i.e. interspecific competition, has been a major theme in the study of wood ants and their role in species assemblages.

This chapter considers interspecific competition as it relates to wood ants, including the behavioural interactions with other ant species and mechanisms of coexistence. Theories regarding the competitive structuring of ant assemblages by wood ants through dominance hierarchies (see below) and the observational and experimental evidence for this are discussed. Factors that regulate competition from wood ants, competitive interactions with other taxa and avenues for advancing our understanding of this topic are also considered.

Behavioural interactions

Interspecific competition arises through two main non-exclusive mechanisms: interference and exploitation. Interference competition includes direct aggressive encounters between individuals over food resources, reproduction or survival. Wood ants are territorial and defend both nest sites and food resources (Savolainen and Vepsäläinen 1988). The relatively large workers (up to 8 mm) spray formic acid from the gaster and bite, as a means of attack or defence, in direct encounters with other ant species (Chapter 5). Exploitation competition (scramble competition) occurs indirectly through a shared limited resource. Here, the use of a resource (usually food) by wood ants depletes the amount available to other species.

Wood ants excel at both discovering and recruiting to resources that they subsequently defend aggressively (Parr and Gibb 2012), leaving little opportunity for other species. Savolainen (1991) showed that, even when co-occurring Formica fusca are first to discover and collect a resource, it is often co-opted by aggressive biting wood ants before it can be transported back to the nest. Other taxa may also be affected, e.g. carabid beetles within wood ant territories are attacked, but not eaten, suggesting interference competition (Reznikova and Dorosheva 2004). Wood ants may also use colony-level behaviours to protect valued resources: for example, in Formica integroides, larger workers forage at more distant trees.

Type
Chapter
Information
Wood Ant Ecology and Conservation , pp. 123 - 144
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aho, T., Kuitunen, M., Suhonen, J., Jäntti, A. and Hakkari, T. (1997) Behavioural responses of Eurasian treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, to competition with ants. Animal Behaviour 54: 1283–1290.Google Scholar
Aho, T., Kuitunen, M., Suhonen, J., Jäntti, A. and Hakkari, T. (1999) Reproductive success of Eurasian treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, lower in territories with wood ants. Ecology 80: 998–1007.Google Scholar
Akasaka, M., Takamura, N., Mitsuhashi, H. and Kadono, Y. (2010) Effects of land use on aquatic macrophyte diversity and water quality of ponds. Freshwater Biology 55: 909–922.Google Scholar
Andersen, A. N. (2008) Not enough niches: non-equilibrial processes promoting species coexixtance in diverse ant communities. Austral Ecology 33: 211–220.Google Scholar
Andersen, A. N. and Patel, A. D. (1994) Meat ants as dominant members of Australian ant communities: an experimental test of their influence on the foraging success and forager abundance of other species. Oecologia 98(1): 15–24.Google Scholar
Brüning, A. (1991) The effect of a single colony of the red wood ant, Formica polyctena, on the spider fauna (Araneae) of a beech forest floor. Oecologia 86: 478–483.Google Scholar
Catzeflis, F. (1979) Etude qualitative et quantitative de l'avi-faune de la pessière jurassienne du Chalet a Roch, Vaud. Nos Oiseaux 35: 75–84.Google Scholar
Cerdá, X., Retana, J. and Cros, S. (1997) Thermal disruption of transitive hierarchies in Mediterranean ant communities. Journal of Animal Ecology 66: 363–374.Google Scholar
Cerdá, X., Retana, J. and Cros, S. (1998) Prey size reverses the outcome of interference interactions of scavenger ants. Oikos 82: 99–110.Google Scholar
Chapuisat, M. and Keller, L. (1999) Extended family structure in the ant Formica paralugubris: the role of the breeding system. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 46: 405–412.Google Scholar
Cherix, D. (1980) Note preliminaire sur la structure, la phenologie et le regime alimentaire d'une super-colonie de Formica lugubris Zett. Insectes Sociaux 27: 226–236.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. American Naturalist 122: 661–696.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. and Slatyer, R. O. (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist 111: 1119–1144.Google Scholar
Cook, S. C. and Davidson, D. W. (2006) Nutritional and functional biology of exudate-feeding ants. Entomologica Experimentalis et Applicata 118: 1–10.Google Scholar
Czechowski, W. (2000) Interference of territorial ant species in the course of raids of Formica sanguinea Latr. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Annales Zoologici 50: 35–38.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. W. (1997) The role of resource imbalances in the evolutionary ecology of tropical arboreal ants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 61: 153–181.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. W. (1998) Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade-off. Ecological Entomology 23: 484–490.Google Scholar
Des Granges, J. L. (1979) Organization of a tropical nectar feeding bird guild in a variable environment. Living Bird 17: 199–236.Google Scholar
Didham, R. K., Ghazoul, J., Stork, N. E. and Davis, A. J. (1996) Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 11: 255–260.Google Scholar
Domisch, T., Finér, L., Neuvonen, S., et al. (2009) Foraging activity and dietary spectrum of wood ants (Formica rufa group) and their role in nutrient fluxes in boreal forests. Ecological Entomology 34: 369–377.Google Scholar
Dorosheva, E. A. and Reznikova, Z. I. (2006) Behavioral mechanisms of spatial competition between red wood ants (Formica aquilonia) and ground beetles (Carabidae). Zhural Obshchei Biologii 67: 344–360.Google Scholar
Feener, D. H. J. (1981) Competition between ant species: outcome controlled by parasitic flies. Science 214: 815–817.Google Scholar
Fellers, J. H. (1987) Interference and exploitation in a guild of woodland ants. Ecology 68.Google Scholar
Finnegan, R. J. (1977) Establishment of a predacious red wood ant, Formica obscuripes (Hymenoptera-Formicidae), from Manitoba to Eastern Canada. Canadian Entomologist 109(8): 1145–1148.Google Scholar
Fowler, S. V. and MacGarvin, M. (1985) The impact of hairy wood ants, Formica lugubris, on the guild structure of herbivorous insects on birch, Betula pubescens. Journal of Animal Ecology 54: 847–855.Google Scholar
Fukami, T., Bezemer, T. M., Mortimer, S. R., van der Putten, W. H. (2005) Species divergence and trait convergence in experimental plant community assembly. Ecology Letters 8: 1283–1290.Google Scholar
Gibb, H. (2011) Experimental evidence for mediation of competition by habitat succession. Ecology 92: 1871–1878.Google Scholar
Gibb, H. and Hjältén, J. (2007) Effects of low severity burning after clear-cutting on mid-boreal ant communities in the two years after fire. Journal of Insect Conservation 11: 169–175.Google Scholar
Gibb, H. and Johansson, T. (2010) Forest succession and harvesting of hemipteran honeydew by boreal ants. Annales Zoologici Fennici 47: 99–110.Google Scholar
Gibb, H. and Johansson, T. (2011) Field tests of interspecific competition in ant assemblages: revisiting the dominant red wood ants. Journal of Animal Ecology 80: 548–557.Google Scholar
Gibb, H. and Hochuli, D. (2004) Removal experiments reveals limited effects of a behaviorally dominant species on ant assemblages. Ecology 85: 648–657.Google Scholar
Greenslade, P. J. M. (1987) Environment and competition as determinants of local geographical distribution of five meat ants, Iridomyrmex purpureus and allied species (Hymenoptera; Formicidae. Australian Journal of Zoology 35: 259–273.Google Scholar
Grove, S. J. (2002) Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 1–23.Google Scholar
Haemig, P. D. (1992) Competition between ants and birds in a Swedish forest. Oikos 65: 479–483.Google Scholar
Haemig, P. D. (1994) Effects of ants on the foraging of birds in spruce trees. Oecologia 97: 35–40.Google Scholar
Haemig, P. D. (1996) Interference from ants alters foraging ecology of great tits. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 38: 25–29.Google Scholar
Haemig, P. D. (1999) Predation risk alters interactions among species: competition and facilitation between ants and nesting birds in a boreal forest. Ecology Letters 2: 178–184.Google Scholar
Halaj, J., Ross, D. W. and Moldenke, A. R. (1997) Negative effects of ant foraging on spiders in Douglas fir canopies. Oecologia 109: 313–322.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. and Bruna, E. (1999) Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure?Ecography 22: 225–232.Google Scholar
Hawes, C., Stewart, A. J. A., and Evans, A. D. (2002) The impact of wood ants (Formica rufa) on the distribution and abundance of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a Scots pine plantation. Oecologia 131: 612–619.Google Scholar
Hawes, C.Evans, H. F. and Stewart, A. J. A. (2013) Interference competition, not predation, explains the negative association between wood ants (Formica rufa) and abundance of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ecological Entomology 38: 315–322.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. (1991) The Ants. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Jäntti, A., Aho, T., Hakkarainen, H., Kuitunen, M. and Suhonen, J. (2001) Prey depletion by the foraging of the Eurasian treecreeper, Certhia familiaris, on tree-trunk arthropods. Oecologia 128: 488–491.Google Scholar
Jäntti, A., Suorsa, P., Hakkarainen, H., et al. (2007) Within territory abundance of red wood ants Formica rufa is associated with the body condition of nestlings in the Eurasian treecreeper Certhia familiaris. Journal of Avian Biology 38: 619–624.Google Scholar
Johansson, T. and Gibb, H. (2012) Forestry alters foraging efficiency and crop contents of aphid-tending red wood ants, Formica aquilonia. PLoS ONE 7: e32817.Google Scholar
Jürgensen, M. F., Storer, A. J. and Risch, A. C. (2003) Red wood ants in North America. Annales Zoologici Fennici 42: 235–242.Google Scholar
Kareiva, P. (1987) Habitat fragmentation and the stability of predator–prey interaction. Nature 326: 388–390.Google Scholar
Kruess, A. and Tscharntke, T. (1994) Habitat fragmentation, species loss, and biological control. Science 264: 1581–1584.Google Scholar
LeBrun, E. G. (2005) Who is the top dog in ant communities? Resources, parasitoids, and multiple competitive hierarchies. Oecologia 142: 643–652.Google Scholar
LeBrun, E. G. and Feener, D. H. J. (2002) Linked indirect effects in ant-phorid interactions: impacts on ant assemblage structure. Oecologia 133: 599–607.Google Scholar
Lövei, G. L. and Sunderland, K. D. (1996) Ecology and behaviour of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology 41: 231–256.Google Scholar
Majerus, M. E. N. (1989) Coccinella magnifica (Redtenbacher): a myrmecophilous ladybird. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 2: 97–106.Google Scholar
Niemelä, J. (1993) Interspecific competition in ground-beetle assemblages (Carabidae): what have we learned?Oikos 66: 325–335.Google Scholar
Niemelä, J., Haila, Y., Halme, E., Pajunen, T. and Punttila, P. (1992) Small-scale heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in the southern Finnish taiga. Journal of Biogeography 19: 173–181.Google Scholar
Niemelä, J., Haila, Y. and 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: 352–368.Google Scholar
Parr, C. L. and Gibb, H. (2012) The discovery–dominance trade-off is the exception, rather than the rule. Journal of Animal Ecology 81: 233–241.Google Scholar
Price, J. W. and Morin, P. J. (2004) Colonisation history determines alternate community stages in a food web of intraguild predators. Ecology 85: 1017–1028.Google Scholar
Punttila, P. (1996) Succession, forest fragmentation, and the distribution of wood ants. Oikos 75: 291–298.Google Scholar
Punttila, P. and Haila, Y. (1996) Colonisation of a burned forest by ants in the southern Finnish boreal forest. Silva Fennica 30: 421–435.Google Scholar
Punttila, P., Haila, Y., Pajunen, T. and Tukia, H. (1991) Colonization of clear-cut forests by ants in the southern Finnish taiga: a quantitative survey. Oikos 61: 250–262.Google Scholar
Punttila, P., Haila, Y., Niemelä, J. and Pajunen, T. (1994) Ant communities in fragments of old-growth taiga and managed surroundings. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31(1): 131–144.Google Scholar
Punttila, P., Haila, Y., Tukia, H. (1996) Ant communities in taiga clearcuts: habitat effects and species interactions. Ecography 19: 16–28.Google Scholar
Reznikova, Z. and Dorosheva, H. (2004) Impacts of red wood ants Formica polyctena on the spatial distribution and behavioural patterns of ground beetles (Carabidae). Pedobiologia 48: 15–21.Google Scholar
Room, P. M. (1975) Relative distributions of ant species in cocoa plantations in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Applied Ecology 12: 47–61.Google Scholar
Rosengren, R. (1986) Competition and coexistence in an insular ant community: a manipulation experiment (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Annales Zoologici Fennici 23: 297–302.Google Scholar
Rosengren, R. and Sundström, L. (1991) The interaction between red wood ants, Cinara aphids, and pines: a ghost of mutualism past? In Huxley, C. R. and Cutler, D. F. (eds), Ant–Plant Interactions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 80–91.
Ryti, R. T. and Case, T. J. (1988) Field experiments on desert ants: testing for competition between colonies. Ecology 69: 1993–2003.Google Scholar
Sanders, N. J. and Gordon, D. M. (2003) Resource-dependent interactions and the organisation of desert ant communities. Ecology 84: 1024–1031.Google Scholar
Savolainen, R. (1991) Interference by wood ant influences size selection and retrieval rate of prey by Formica fusca. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28: 1–7.Google Scholar
Savolainen, R. and Vepsäläinen, K. (1988) A competition hierarchy among boreal ants: impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51: 135–155.Google Scholar
Savolainen, R. and Vepsäläinen, K. (1989) Niche differentiation of ant species within territories of the wood ant Formica polyctena. Oikos 56: 3–16.Google Scholar
Savolainen, R., Vepsäläinen, K. and Wuorenrinne, H. (1989) Ant assemblages in the taiga biome: testing the role of territorial wood ants. Oecologia 81: 481–486.Google Scholar
Schaffer, W. M., Jensen, D. B., Hobbs, D. E., et al. (1979) Competition, foraging energetics, and the cost of sociality in three species of bees. Ecology 60: 976–987.Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. American Scientist 70: 586–595.Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist 122: 240–285.Google Scholar
Schwilk, D. W. and Ackerly, D.D. (2005) Limiting similarity and functional diversity along environmental gradients. Ecology Letters 8(3): 272–281.Google Scholar
Seppä, P., Sundström, L. and Punttila, P. (1995) Facultative polygyny and habitat succession in boreal ants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 533–551.Google Scholar
Skinner, J. (1980) The feeding habits of the wood-ant, Formica rufa (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in limestone woodland in north-west England. Journal of Animal Ecology 49: 417–433.Google Scholar
Skinner, J. and Whittaker, B. (1981) An experimental investigation of inter-relationships between the wood-ant (Formica rufa) and some tree-canopy herbivores. Journal of Animal Ecology 50: 313–326.Google Scholar
Sorvari, J. (2009) Foraging distances and potentiality in forest pest insect control: an example with two candidate ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 12: 211–215.Google Scholar
Sorvari, J. and Hakkarainen, H. (2007) Wood ants are wood ants: deforestation causes population declines in the polydomous wood ant Formica aquilonia. Ecological Entomology 32: 707–711.Google Scholar
Tanner, C. J. (2008) Resource characteristics and competition affect colony and individual foraging strategies of the wood ant Formica integroides. Ecological Entomology 33: 127–136.Google Scholar
Traniello, J. F. A. (1983) Social organization and foraging success in Lasius neoniger (Hymenoptera: Formicinae): behavioral and ecological aspects of recruitment communication. Oecologia 59: 94–100.Google Scholar
Vepsäläinen, K. and Pisarski, B. (1982) Assembly of island ant communities. Annales Zoologici Fennici 19: 327–335.Google Scholar
Vepsäläinen, K. and Savolainen, R. (1990) The effects of interference by Formicine ants on the foraging of Myrmica. Journal of Animal Ecology 59: 643–654.Google Scholar
Way, M. J. (1958) The influence of other ant species on biological control of Oecophylla longinoda (Latr). Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Entomology 4: 595–596.Google Scholar
Werner, E. E. (1976) Species interactions in freshwater fish communities. In Diamond, J. and Case, T. J. (eds), Community Ecology. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 344–357.
Whittaker, J. B. and Warrington, S. (1985) An experimental field study of different levels of insect herbivory induced by Formica rufa predation on sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) III. Effects on tree growth. Journal of Applied Ecology 22: 797–811.Google Scholar
Väänänen, S., Vepsäläinen, K. and Savolainen, R. (2010) Indirect effects in boreal ant assemblages: territorial wood ants protect potential slaves against enslaving ants. Annales Zoologici 60: 57–67.Google Scholar
Zanette, L., Doyle, P. and Tremont, S.M. (2000) Food shortage in small fragments: evidence from an area-sensitive passerine. Ecology 81: 1654–1666.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×