Ant Abundance along a Productivity Gradient: Addressing Two Conflicting Hypotheses

Udi Segev; Jaime Kigel; Yael Lubin; Katja Tielbörger

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131314

Abstract

The number of individuals within a population or community and their body size can be associated with changes in resource supply. While these relationships may provide a key to better understand the role of abiotic vs. biotic constraints in animal communities, little is known about the way size and abundance of organisms change along resource gradients. Here, we studied this interplay in ants, addressing two hypotheses with opposite predictions regarding variation in population densities along resource gradients- the ‘productivity hypothesis’ and the ‘productivity-based thinning hypothesis’. The hypotheses were tested in two functional groups of ground-dwelling ants that are directly primary consumers feeding on seeds: specialized seed-eaters and generalist species. We examined variations in colony density and foraging activity (a size measurement of the forager caste) in six ant assemblages along a steep productivity gradient in a semi-arid region, where precipitation and plant biomass vary 6-fold over a distance of 250km. An increase in the density or foraging activity of ant colonies along productivity gradients is also likely to affect competitive interactions among colonies, and consequently clinal changes in competition intensity were also examined. Ant foraging activity increased with productivity for both functional groups. However, colony density revealed opposing patterns: it increased with productivity for the specialized seed-eaters, but decreased for the generalist species. Competition intensity, evaluated by spatial partitioning of species at food baits and distribution of colonies, was uncorrelated with productivity in the specialized seed-eaters, but decreased with increasing productivity in the generalists. Our results provide support for two contrasting hypotheses regarding the effect of resource availability on the abundance of colonial organisms- the ‘productivity hypothesis’ for specialized seed-eaters and the ‘productivity-based thinning hypothesis’ for generalist species. These results also stress the importance of considering the role of functional groups in studies of community structure.

Citation: Segev U, Kigel J, Lubin Y, Tielbörger K (2015) Ant Abundance along a Productivity Gradient: Addressing Two Conflicting Hypotheses. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131314. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314

Editor: Fabio S. Nascimento, Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, BRAZIL

Received: November 7, 2014; Accepted: June 1, 2015; Published: July 15, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Segev et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This study is part of the GLOWA Jordan River project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The publication fee for this paper was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Open Access Publishing Fund of the University of Tübingen.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

One of the major goals of ecology is to understand the processes that account for variation in community structure along geographical gradients [1,2]. Among these, patterns of variation in species abundance have been the focus of many broad-scale ecological studies. Many of these studies have shown that taxocene (i.e. taxonomically related set of species co-occurring in a given place) abundance could co-vary positively with resource availability along primary productivity gradients (lizards: [3], ants: [4], birds: [5]), thus supporting the premise that greater food availability can maintain greater population densities. This hypothesis was termed the ‘productivity hypothesis’ [4]. Nevertheless, other studies failed to find such evidence [6] or have even found a decrease in population densities along productivity gradients [7,8].

A lack of positive correlation between productivity and abundance suggests that this relationship can be affected by factors other than resource availability alone. For example, in many taxocenes, body size has been shown to influence the way species use and divide resources and therefore could also limit their relative abundances [9–12]. Moreover, mean body size of individuals could increase with increasing resources, as has been shown by several studies (mammals: [13], ants: [14], birds: [15]). Consequently, increased resource supply can support more individuals in a population or community but it can also lead to an increase in body size of organisms [10,16], in which case abundance might remain unchanged or even decrease. Thus, along resource gradients, energetic tradeoffs could affect size-abundance relationships due to density-dependent processes, such as resource competition among organisms in the community [10,12]. We therefore suggest that along productivity gradients, taxocene abundance might not be constrained only by resource availability but also by changes in mean body size of individuals which could affect density-dependent processes, such as competition for limited resources. We refer to this hypothesis as the ‘productivity-based thinning hypothesis’. The different predictions of these two hypotheses call for in-depth studies of clines of abundance and size along resource gradients. However, while these relationships can provide a key to understanding the underlying processes that affect community structure, our knowledge on the way size and abundance of animals vary along resource gradients is still limited.

We studied the relationship between abundance and productivity in ground-dwelling ants (Formicidae) with regards to the above two hypotheses, in an attempt to explain the patterns of variation in their abundance along a productivity gradient in a semi-arid region. Ants are ideally suited to address this question as they are a common taxonomic group in most terrestrial ecosystems [17] and are sensitive to environmental changes [4,18,19]. In ants, which are eusocial insects, abundance is measured as colony density (number of colonies area^-1) [4]. Accordingly, as suggested in the productivity hypothesis, if colony density is constrained by resource availability alone, it is predicted to increase with increasing resources. In contrast, the productivity-based thinning hypothesis suggests that colony density might be constrained not only by resource availability, but also by changes in mean body size of individuals (i.e. the size of ant colonies), which could limit colony density due to resource depletion or interference competition among colonies. In ants, the size of a colony comprises both the mass of individual workers and the number of workers [14]. As a size measurement in this study we used foraging activity per colony (number of foragers colony^-1 time^-1), a size estimate of the forager caste.

Previous studies have shown that an increase in foraging activity and resource intake of ant colonies could be associated with increases in primary productivity, particularly in systems that are resource limited [20–24]. Increased foraging activity can in turn result in increased competition among neighboring colonies due to increased interference and aggressiveness, which may affect the monopolization of food sources and the success of colonies such that colonies with more workers are more aggressive and can better defend their space or foraging ranges [25–30]. This suggests that density dependent interactions, such as competition for shared resources among species with similar ecological requirements, could lead to lower densities in the more productive sites than would be expected according to site productivity. Accordingly, the productivity-based thinning hypothesis proposes that in the more productive sites, ant colonies could be better able to defend space or resources due to the predicted increase in foraging activity of colonies, which may result in a lower colony density in these sites. The predictions of this hypothesis could be directly linked to total colony size (number of workers per colony) or colony biomass (the product of worker number per colony and mean worker body mass), but also could be associated with foraging activity, because all energy gain per colony is a product of foraging [4,31,32]. In addition, competition between colonies occurs mainly via exploitation of food resources and behavioral interactions among foragers (e.g. [17,21,27,33]).

To summarize, the productivity hypothesis predicts that colony density is limited by the amount of available resources and will increase with increasing resources along a productivity gradient. Alternatively, the productivity-based thinning hypothesis predicts that colony density is limited by foraging activity as well as resource availability and therefore that colony density will decrease with increasing foraging activity of ant colonies in the assemblage along a productivity gradient.

As an increase in the density or foraging activity of ant colonies is likely to affect competitive interactions among colonies along productivity gradients, we examined several predictions regarding the way competition intensity varies in ant assemblages in response to changes in the availability of resources. For instance, if colony density increases with increased resources, as suggested in the productivity hypothesis, competition intensity might increase as well due to increased aggressiveness among the more densely aggregated colonies. However, competition also could be intense at lower levels of resource availability, due to the 'struggle' for the limited resources. Alternatively, if colony density decreases with increased resources, as suggested in the productivity-based thinning hypothesis, competition intensity might remain unchanged with an increase in resource availability due to the expected trade-off between colony density and foraging activity. Previous studies tested the way competition intensity varies along stress gradients in several communities, such as plants (e.g. the stress-gradient hypothesis, [34]) and ants [35–37]. In the latter, competition was found to be a major factor regulating assemblages in low-stress regions as defined by ambient temperature. However, there is still no solid conceptual foundation for determining how competition intensity varies in ant assemblages along productivity gradients at a macroecological scale. This is of particular importance in low productivity regions, where primary stressors for plants (i.e. water availability) and ants (i.e. food availability) are associated.

Here, we examined variation in colony density and foraging activity as well as variation in an estimate of competition intensity between ant colonies in six assemblages along a natural productivity gradient occurring over a relatively short geographic distance in a semi-arid region. This productivity gradient exhibits large variation in precipitation and biomass of the herbaceous vegetation (Table 1) nested within a single regional pool of ant species and a similar habitat type (e.g. [38]). Along this geographic gradient, productivity varies greatly while the temperature range remains fairly constant (Table 1). The lack of a temperature gradient is important here, since along macroecological gradients ant community abundance was found to be influenced mostly by variation in primary productivity and temperature [4]. In particular, temperature, together with precipitation, act as the main predictors of primary productivity [39], and consequently could affect the amount of available resources. Temperature could also limit the ability of foragers to access food resources [4], through effects on foraging activity and efficiency (e.g. [27,40]) as well as individual metabolic rates [41]. This study system provides an opportunity to study the effect of primary productivity independently from that of ambient temperature, where precipitation is the main driver of site productivity. In order to generalize our findings, we studied these interactions for two consecutive years in two functional groups of ground-dwelling ants that use similar resources but differ in their body sizes (S1 Fig) and their ecological requirements: generalist species vs. specialized seed eaters. In our study system primary productivity is composed mainly of annual plants, whose seeds are the main source of food for both generalist and specialist ant species. We predicted that the specialized seed eaters, which use seeds as a greater fraction of their diet, have larger and highly polymorphic foragers and are expected to be more efficient in foraging for seeds [27,40,42], would have higher rates of resource acquisition (e.g. [27,31]) and would therefore exhibit a higher rate of increase in foraging activity along the productivity gradient compared to the generalist species.

Download:

Table 1. Study sites and their characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.t001

Materials and Methods

Study sites

The study was carried out in six sites located at low-elevation (at 135–470 m a.s.l.) along a south-north ecocline across mesic-Mediterranean and desert regions in Israel. These regions have a Mediterranean bi-seasonal climate, with a mild and rainy winter growth season (October-March), and a warm dry summer season. Precipitation in the study sites along the ecocline increases from 94 mm × year^-1 in the Negev Desert up to 662 mm × year^-1 in the Mediterranean region, within a ca. 250 km transect, while mean annual temperatures remain similar along the ecocline (Table 1). Minimum and maximum distances between the nearest sites are 37±18 km and 68±40 km, respectively.

Productivity, i.e. the rate at which energy flows through an ecosystem [43], can be assessed indirectly in several ways, such as precipitation, evapotranspiration and plant biomass [44]. Here we used mean annual precipitation (averaged for the years 1978–2008), which is commonly used as a surrogate of productivity in a variety of studies in this arid region (e.g. [40,43,45]). The precipitation gradient corresponded to an increase in plant biomass, which was assessed by measuring the dry weight of above-ground biomass of herbaceous plants at peak season (April) in 12 0.6×0.6 m quadrats per site per year, during four consecutive years (2007–2010). There was a significant correlation between mean annual precipitation for the years 1978–2008 and biomass of herbaceous plants (Spearman’s rank coefficient = 0.94, P = 0.005, n = 6 sites; Fig a in S2 Fig), as well as between mean annual precipitation and actual precipitation for each year (Spearman’s rank coefficient = 1.00, P < 0.001, n = 6 for the years 2007 or 2008). However, no correlation was found between annual precipitation and ambient temperature (Spearman’s rank coefficient = 0.10, P = 0.85, n = 6; Fig b in S2 Fig), or between plant biomass and ambient temperature (Spearman’s rank coefficient = 0.10, P = 0.85, n = 6). In order to reduce potential effects of habitat heterogeneity, the study sites were restricted to open habitats with herbaceous vegetation and high dominance of annual and hemicryptophytic species, and were located in Long-Term Ecological Research stations or in private rangelands, to minimize anthropogenic disturbance. Permission to access sites was given by private land owners and by the Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University; Hatzerim Airbase; Lehavim LTER station and Northern Research and Development, Galilee Technology Center. This study did not involve endangered or protected species.

Ant colony density and foraging activity

Estimations of colony density and foraging activity were taken at different spatial scales for the generalist species (three 20 × 15 m plots per site) and the specialized seed eaters (one 100 × 100 m plot per site). We used these two spatial scales since the specialized seed eaters, with nest mounds extending up to 1–2 m in diameter ([46], per. obs.) and distances to nearest colonies between 7 m (Karei Deshe site) to 13 m (Sede Boqer site), were infrequently represented in the smaller plots. In addition, colony density measurements were also taken for the specialized seed eaters at the 20 × 15 m plots, together with the generalist species.

Generalist species.

Workers of most of these ant species collect both plant material, such as seeds or fruits, and dead arthropods [46,47]. Species included in this group were generalist foragers, most of which belong to three functional groups according to both global [35,48] and regional [46,47] classifications: Generalized Myrmicinae (the genera Crematogaster, Monomorium and Pheidole), Opportunists (Tetramorium) and Dominant Dolichoderinae (Tapinoma) (S1 Table). Camponotus and Cataglyphis species were excluded from the analysis since they were poorly sampled by our methods due to their foraging behavior (i.e., single foragers) and because they are ecologically distinct from the other functional groups in that they do not feed on seeds or plant material (feeding mainly on honey-dew collectors and dead arthropods, respectively; [48]).

The foraging activity of the generalist species was monitored in each site at three randomly-chosen plots of 20 × 15 m located at least 100 m apart. The sampling was conducted in two consecutive years at the same plots, during August 2007 (mid- summer) and September 2008 (end of summer), when ant activity is high [38], but before the first rains and the foundation of new colonies by new foundresses. There were large differences in yearly amounts of precipitation between these two years; precipitation per site decreased by 20–50% along the gradient from the Mediterranean to the desert between 2007 and 2008 (Table 1).

Colony density and forager number per colony were evaluated by monitoring ant foraging activity in the plots during a 24-h cycle. Twenty food baits were placed 5 m apart in each plot at sunset. Each food bait consisted of a 0.2 × 0.2 m paper sheet covered with separate patches of honey (5 g) at one end and sesame and millet seeds (5 g) at the other. In 2007, the baits were sampled during the night (22:00) and the following morning (06:00) two and ten hours after bait placement, respectively. In 2008, the baits were sampled once during the night (22:00) and twice during the following morning (06:00, 09:00) due to an increase in the duration of ant activity. Due to bait destruction by jackals in 2007, one plot was excluded from each of three sites (Lahav, Karei Deshe and Ramot Menashe; Table 1). The food baits were observed for approximately two minutes, during which the number of individuals occupying the baits were counted per species. Workers were identified to species on-site and in cases of uncertainty were collected, stored in vials with 70% ethanol and identified in the laboratory using identification keys. Nomenclature followed the Hymenoptera Online Database (<http://hol.osu.edu>). Voucher specimens are found in the authors’ collection.

Colony density was estimated according to the number of active nests per plot. Active nests were evaluated and marked by tracking workers returning to their nests from the food-baits. Nest entrances of the same species that were less than 1 m apart were counted as a single nest entrance (e.g. [4]). Least-squares linear regression was used to test the relationship between mean number of colonies per plot averaged for the years 2007–2008 and mean annual precipitation. This analysis was tested separately for the generalist species and for both functional groups combined.

Forager number per colony was assessed as the number of workers counted along all foraging trails found outside the nest located between the nest entrance and the food baits. In order to reduce variability in foraging activity during a 24-h cycle, number of workers for active colonies was counted at four different sampling periods, twice in the night and twice in the day. The value taken for each colony was the maximum number of workers counted at these four different periods. Least-squares linear regression was used to test the relationship between average forager number per species per year and mean annual precipitation. Data were log₁₀ transformed to meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances.

Specialized seed eaters.

Species included in this group are seed harvesters, which belong exclusively to the genus Messor and forage mainly on plant seeds [42,49]. Workers of these species are considerably larger than the generalist species (S1 Table and S1 Fig), showing highly polymorphic body sizes with continuous morphological variation [40]. The foraging activity of these species was monitored together with that of the generalist species in each site at the same three randomly-chosen plots of 20 × 15 m in August 2007 and September 2008. The Messor species occurred more often at the seed baits compared to the species categorized as generalists (S3 Fig).

The foraging activity of the specialized seed eaters was also monitored independently from that of the generalist species. Messor workers are larger and their mature colonies form conspicuous mounds, whose density and foraging activity can be measured by direct observations. At each site, ant foraging activity was observed in a plot of 100 × 100 m. The observations were conducted in two consecutive years at the same plots during September 2008 and 2009.

Colony density was estimated as the number of active colonies in the 100 × 100 m plot per site and was evaluated by visually searching for active colonies during early morning (06:00–11:00) and evening (16:00–19:00). When nest entrances of the same species were found to be less than 1 m apart, they were counted as a single nest. For each year, least-squares linear regression was used to test the relationship between number of colonies per site and mean annual precipitation.

Forager number per colony was estimated by counting the number of workers for 20 randomly selected colonies per site at the 100 × 100 m plots. As for the generalist species, forager number was measured as the maximum number of workers found anywhere along the foraging trails and was counted at four different sampling periods during the day, twice in the morning and twice in the evening. The relationship between average forager number per species and annual precipitation was tested using linear regression for each year separately.

In order to examine the differences between the two functional groups in the matching between forager number and primary productivity, the slopes of the linear regressions between mean forager number per site and mean annual precipitation were compared between specialized seed eaters vs. generalist species for the two years separately using ANCOVA. A significant interaction between functional group as a fixed factor and precipitation as the covariate indicates significant differences between the slopes.

Competition intensity

Variation in competitive interactions among the ants along the gradient was evaluated using the spatial partitioning of species at food baits as well as the spatial distribution of ant colonies. Both methods were previously used to evaluate competitive interactions in ants indirectly (e.g. [50,51]). However, the first technique estimates present competitive interactions occurring during foraging at bait stations, while the latter could be either a cause or consequence of competitive interactions and therefore could reflect past or present competition. For the specialized seed eaters, only the method of spatial distribution of colonies was used, because foraging activity was not examined using baits at the 100 × 100 m plots, but only by direct observation.

Spatial partitioning of species at baits.

Co-occurrence patterns among species at baits were evaluated to determine whether the species aggregate or segregate in space. These patterns were analyzed using EcoSim, version 7 [52], which tests for non-random species co-occurrence patterns in a presence-absence matrix by randomizing the observed matrix (5000 times in our analyses). Only species that occurred in at least 5% of the baits per site and occupied simultaneously the same plots were included in the analysis. To quantify the tendency of species to not co-occur, the Stone and Roberts [53] C-score index was used, which measures the average number of checkerboard units (i.e., pairs of baits occupied by two different species) among the species. In a competitively structured community, the C-score should be significantly larger than expected by chance. The null model algorithm used in this analysis consisted of equiprobable columns (samples) and fixed row (species) sums, allowing the number of species in a sample to vary while keeping the same average number of species for the samples. This null model was suggested as the most appropriate algorithm for analyzing samples such as food baits [50]. In addition, Standardized Effect Size (SES) values were used to compare results among sites. Here, the observed matrix is rescaled as the number of standard deviation units above or below the mean of the simulated values. Assuming a normal distribution of deviations, approximately 95% of the SES values should fall between -1.96 and 1.96. Values larger than 1.96 indicate non-random segregation, and values lower than -1.96 indicate non-random aggregation of species. SES values may be confounded by forager number or colony density per site, which could limit the potential for competitive encounters among species without having to actively avoid competitors. Therefore, the correlation between SES and colony density or forager number for the two years was tested using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Spatial distribution of ant colonies.

The distance between ant colonies and their nearest neighbors was measured at each site for the generalist species and the specialized seed eaters separately. The minimum observed distances between colonies of all species per plot were then compared to random minimum distances, which were generated using a program code written in MATLAB R2009b (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA). The MATLAB code is available upon request. In order to compare the different values among sites, the standard variation (Z) of Nearest Neighbor Distance was calculated using the method of Clark and Evans [54]: where NND_obs is the mean of observed minimum distances per plot, NND_sim is the mean of 5000 simulated minimum distances per plot and sdNND_sim is the standard deviation of these random distances. Z values between -1.96 and 1.96 indicate random distribution of colonies. Values larger than 1.96 indicate colony segregation (i.e., uniform distribution) and values below -1.96 indicate colony aggregation (i.e., clumped distribution). Mean values for each plot were then averaged for each site per year. The relationship between NND and annual precipitation or colony density was tested using linear regression.

All statistical analyses were conducted using JMP 8 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) unless otherwise indicated.

Results

Ant colony density and forager number

A total of 19,850 individuals from 207 colonies, and 44,722 individuals from 387 colonies were recorded in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Seventeen ant species were found across the different sites, most of which (13 species) belong to the generalist category (S1 Table), and mean species richness per site was approximately 8 (range 7–9). Overall, mean colony density of the two functional groups for the two years decreased with increasing mean annual precipitation (linear regression: y = 22.78–0.013x, F_1,4 = 8.87, r² = 0.69, P = 0.041). When analyzed separately for each year, colony density decreased with mean annual precipitation in 2007 (linear regression: y = 17.42–0.012x, F_1,4 = 16.52, r² = 0.81, P = 0.015; Fig 1A) but not in 2008 (linear regression: F_1,4 = 2.12, r² = 0.35, P = 0.22; Fig 1B). In contrast, mean forager number for the two years increased with mean annual precipitation (linear regression: y = 72.13+0.138x, F_1,4 = 17.40, r² = 0.81, P = 0.014).

Download:

Fig 1. Relationships between colony density or forager number per species and mean annual precipitation in 2007 (a,c) and 2008 (b,d) of the generalist species (open circles, dashed line) or both functional groups when monitored together (plus sign, solid line) in the 20 × 15 m plots.

The same relationships were also obtained for the specialized seed eaters (filled circles, dotted line) in the 100 × 100 m plots in 2008 (b,d) and 2009 (a,c) and standardized according to the 20 × 15 m plots.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.g001

Generalist species.

Similar to the patterns shown above for both functional groups, colony density decreased with mean annual precipitation in 2007 (linear regression: y = 16.41–0.011x, F_1,4 = 46.26, r² = 0.92, P < 0.005; Fig 1A). In 2008, the linear relationship was not significant (linear regression: F_1,4 = 1.95, r² = 0.33, P = 0.23; Fig 1B). Forager number per species increased with mean annual precipitation in 2008 (linear regression: logy = 2.52+0.348logx, F_1,35 = 5.59, r² = 0.14, P = 0.024; Fig 1D) but not in 2007 (linear regression: logy = 2.41+0.321logx, F_1,25 = 3.52, r² = 0.12, P = 0.072; Fig 1C).

Specialized seed eaters.

Colony density increased with mean annual precipitation in 2008 (y = 0.97+0.003x, linear regression: F_1,4 = 25.34, r² = 0.86, P < 0.01; Fig 1B) and 2009 (y = 1.22+0.002x, linear regression: F_1,4 = 7.33, r² = 0.65, P = 0.053; Fig 1A). Similarly, forager number per species increased with mean annual precipitation in both years (linear regression: 2008, logy = 2.57+0.525logx, F_1,6 = 10.88, r² = 0.64, P = 0.016; Fig 1D; 2009, logy = 1.77+0.650logx, F_1,6 = 16.28, r² = 0.73, P < 0.001; Fig 1C).

As predicted, the slope of increase in mean forager number with precipitation was significantly greater for the specialized seed eaters than for the generalist species (2007: β_specialists = 0.594 ± 0.479, β_generalists = 0.053 ± 0.136; ANCOVA: functional group × mean annual precipitation, F_1,8 = 9.07, P = 0.017; 2008: β_specialists = 0.415 ± 0.242, β_generalists = 0.117 ± 0.113; ANCOVA: functional group × mean annual precipitation, F_1,8 = 9.57, P = 0.015) (Fig 1C and 1D).

Competition intensity

Generalist species.

The generalist species were found more often in the honey than in seed baits (S3 Fig). Species co-occurrence patterns were similar between the two years (S2 Table). The observed C-score values were significantly higher than the simulated values in the two most arid sites, Sede-Boqer and Hatzerim, indicating a tendency of species in these sites to segregate. In the more productive sites, however, the observed C-score values were not significantly different from random. A similar pattern was obtained using Standardized Effect Size (SES) values to compare among sites. SES values were larger than 1.96 only for the two arid sites, indicating non-random segregation of species (Fig 2). In the second year however, the value for the arid site (Sede-Boqer) was slightly lower (1.89). In the other sites, the distribution of species at baits was not significantly different from random. In addition, SES values for the two years did not correlate with colony density (Pearson’s r = 0.12, P = 0.72, n = 12) or forager number (Pearson’s r = -0.19, P = 0.55, n = 12).

Download:

Fig 2. The relationship between Standardized Effect Size values of co-occurrence patterns between generalist species and mean annual precipitation in 2007 (open triangles) and 2008 (filled triangles).

SES values between -1.96 and 1.96 indicate random species co-occurrence patterns in the experimental baits. Values above 1.96 and below -1.96 indicate non-random species segregation and aggregation, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.g002

Minimum distance between colonies was not significantly affected by mean annual precipitation in 2007 (linear regression: F_1,4 = 2.41, r² = 0.376, P = 0.19), but the relationship was negative in 2008 (linear regression: F_1,4 = 20.28, r² = 0.84, P = 0.011) (Fig 3A). In addition, minimum distance between colonies for the two years correlated positively with colony density (Pearson’s r = 0.77, P = 0.003, n = 12), indicating increasing uniformity in nest distribution with increasing colony density.

Download:

Fig 3. The relationship between the standard score (Z) of Nearest Neighbor Distance and mean annual precipitation for the generalist species (a) and specialized seed eaters (b) in 2007 (open triangles) and 2008 (filled triangles, solid line).

Z values between -1.96 and 1.96 indicate random distribution of colonies. Values above 1.96 and below -1.96 indicate colony segregation and aggregation, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.g003

Specialized seed eaters.

In both 2008 and 2009, nest distribution was uniform and minimum distance between colonies was not affected by mean annual precipitation (linear regression: 2008, F_1,4 = 0.074, r² = 0.018, P = 0.80; 2009, F_1,4 = 2.100, r² = 0.34, P = 0.22; Fig 3B). In addition, minimum distance between colonies for the two years did not correlate with colony density (Pearson’s r = 0.36, P = 0.26, n = 12).

Discussion

Abundance of organisms can vary in conflicting ways along gradients of resource availability. Along such gradients, increased resource supply is predicted to positively affect the relative abundances of species [4,6,55]. Our results revealed a different pattern by which colony density of ground-dwelling ant species decreased with productivity, which might be attributed to an observed increase in foraging activity, a size measurement of the forager caste of individual colonies. However, a separate analysis for generalist species vs. specialized seed eaters revealed that these distinct groups exhibit opposite patterns of response. These contrasting patterns provide support for two opposing hypotheses regarding the effect of resource availability on ant abundance.

Specialized seed eaters and the ‘productivity hypothesis’

The increase in colony density of specialized seed eaters with increasing productivity is consistent with the prediction of the productivity hypothesis [4], namely, that the abundance of ant colonies is constrained by resource availability. These findings suggest that resource availability plays an important role in structuring the assemblage of specialized seed eaters in this arid region. Similar trends were obtained in a number of studies of ant communities, in which resource availability along geographical gradients was shown to limit colony density [4,56,57].

With the increase in colony density and foraging activity along the productivity gradient, it is possible that competition intensity will increase with increased resource availability, due to potentially more frequent encounters among the ant colonies or greater aggressiveness, which could be exhibited as a result of increased forager number (e.g. [51,58]). Alternatively, competition intensity could decrease with increased resource availability, due to a more intense 'struggle' for the limited resources under lower levels of resource availability. However, our results regarding nearest-neighbor distances between colonies of seed-harvesting ants indicate significant over-dispersion at all sites, without any effect of either precipitation or colony density. This suggests that competition is intense but does not differ among sites, despite differences in resource availability. As competition intensity in the specialized seed eaters was measured using colony nearest neighbor estimates, it is not clear whether the observed over-dispersion of colonies is maintained due to exploitative or interference competition, such as selective killing of new queens or elimination of smaller neighbor colonies. The nearest-neighbor distance measurements may reflect past or present competition, and we can only speculate about the mechanisms causing this over-dispersion pattern.

Results of another study conducted across the same sites [40], revealed that mean foraging distances of the seed-harvesting ant species decreases with an increase in precipitation, despite a higher foraging activity. This decrease in foraging distance could be explained either by an increase in food resources, which could allow for the shortening of foraging trails, or by an increase in competition intensity by the more dense and active colonies. This result together with the nearest-neighbor distance analyses suggest that competition intensity does not decrease along this productivity gradient.

The observed pattern of colony dispersion could be explained not only by competition intensity, but also by the patchy distribution of food resources. However, this in unlikely in our system for the following reasons: First, if indeed the harvester ant colonies were concentrated in rich food patches, then the observed dispersion should have been clumped instead of uniform. Secondly, personal observations at the study sites indicate that rich seed reserves are more patchily distributed at the low-productivity region. This suggests that if harvester ant colonies were indeed concentrated in rich food patches, then the correlation between NND and precipitation would have been negative and the foraging distances of the Messor spp. would have been similar along the productivity gradient, which was not the case.

Generalist ants and the ‘productivity-based thinning hypothesis’

The generalist species revealed a contrasting pattern to that of the specialized seed eaters: while mean forager number per colony increased with increasing productivity, colony density decreased. These results are consistent with the predictions of the productivity-based thinning hypothesis, according to which foraging activity per colony increases and colony density decreases with increasing resource availability. Furthermore, according to this hypothesis, competition intensity between colonies may remain similar with increased resource availability due to a decrease in colony density and a concurrent increase in foraging activity. Our results of the spatial partitioning of species at baits and spatial distribution of ant colonies suggest, however, a decrease in the intensity of competitive interactions along the productivity gradient. This is indicated first by the fact that the generalist species tended to co-occur less frequently than expected by chance in baits at the low-productivity sites, suggesting that in these sites they tended to avoid inter-specific encounters. Second, the nearest-neighbor distances were positively correlated with colony density in the two years, but negatively correlated with productivity, indicating that colony dispersion of the generalist species changed from an over-dispersed to a more randomly-dispersed pattern with increased productivity.

Although competition may be an important factor explaining the decrease in colony density, we also should consider the distinction between competition intensity and its importance at the community level. As suggested by Welden and Slauson [59], competition intensity is the sum or average of the amount of strain experienced by individuals as a result of resource use by other individuals. Competition importance, however, is the effect of competition on the distribution and spatial patterning of individuals and species along environmental gradients relative to the effect of other processes (e.g. disturbance, predation). We propose that the decrease in colony density along this resource gradient could be the result of an increase in the importance rather than intensity of competition, past or present, among the more active colonies of the generalist species. More experiments are needed in order to further support or refute the productivity-based thinning hypothesis, for instance by experimentally manipulating foraging activity or augmenting food resources at the different sites along the productivity gradient.

Another possible explanation to the observed decrease in colony density of the generalist species with increased productivity could be related to changes in the abundance of the specialized seed eaters in the ant assemblages. This decrease might be accounted for by interspecific competition with these species, with which they share resources and which exhibit an increase in both colony density and foraging activity along the productivity gradient. The specialized seed eaters, which use seeds as a greater fraction of their diet, are larger than the generalist species and have highly polymorphic worker sizes. Thus, they might be more efficient foragers, as they can carry a greater diversity of food particles to greater distances [27,31,40,42]. In addition, as suggested in other studies, small numbers of larger-sized species with larger colonies could dominate energy use in eusocial insect communities [31,60]. Although larger workers are more costly to produce [61], they may have a longer lifespan [60], which could decrease worker turnover and increase colony size (i.e. total number of workers and alates per colony) [31,60,62]. Interestingly, examination of the relationship between two measured size components of the forager caste, forager body size and forager number per colony, revealed a positive linear relationship, in which forager number increases with species’ body size (S4 Fig), a similar relationship to that found previously between colony size and worker body size [31,60,62,63].

Finally, the decrease in colony density of the generalist species with increased productivity could be a sampling artifact. For example, the ability to detect ant colonies around the food baits may decrease with an increase in productivity due to greater plant height and habitat complexity, or due to changes in the response of the ant species to the experimental baits. In that case, observed foraging distances to the experimental baits should decrease with an increase in site productivity. However, our measurements of generalist species revealed that there was no significant negative correlation between mean annual precipitation and foraging distance (U. Segev, unpublished data), suggesting that sampling artifacts are unlikely to have caused the pattern observed in our study.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that colony density of ground-dwelling ants is affected by resource availability, but that the nature of the effect differs in specialized seed eaters and generalist species. The contrasting responses found in these two groups may be attributed to greater resource use efficiency of the specialized seed eaters, which enables better matching between resource availability and its conversion into workers, compared to the generalist species. These findings stress the importance of considering the role of functional groups in studies of community structure. Our findings also indicate a directional change in competition intensity along the productivity gradient in one of the functional groups- it decreased with increasing productivity for the generalists, but was uncorrelated with productivity for the specialized seed eaters. Further studies measuring interference and exploitative competition experimentally at the community level and across a geographical scale are needed to unravel the variation in competition within a taxocene along latitudinal gradients [64,65]. We studied patterns along a short geographic gradient with a similar ant species pool, in which annual rainfall and plant biomass are highly correlated and change dramatically within a very short distance. This approach minimizes potential confounding effects due to climatic effects, habitat heterogeneity, different regional species pools and biogeographic history. Consistency in our results over the two sampling years supports the validity of the observed patterns. Finally, unraveling causes of change in species abundances in different assemblages is among the most general and important endeavors in community ecology and macroecology [2]. Here, we propose that energy-based variables and biotic interactions are both important in explaining these patterns of change. Such a mechanistic approach is necessary for understanding large-scale ecological patterns.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. Relationships between forager body size and mean annual precipitation for generalist species and specialized seed-eaters.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Relationships between plant biomass and precipitation (Figure a) or between ambient temperature and precipitation (Figure b).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Proportion of total occurrences of ant species at the different sites according to bait type.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.s003

(DOCX)

S4 Fig. The allometric scaling relationship between forager number and forager body size.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.s004

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Averages of colony density, forager number (±se) and forager size (mm) (±se) of the generalist species monitored in the study sites in 2007–2008 and the specialized seed-eaters in 2008–2009.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.s005

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Co-occurrence patterns of generalist ant species at food baits in the years 2007 and 2008.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.s006

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Species activity monitored at the experimental baits for the generalist species (2007–2008) and at natural food patches for the specialized seed-eaters (2008–2009).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131314.s007

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hilda Weistel, Ronit Arbel, Ido Gilan, Tal Keidan, Albert Kaminer and Yehuda Yehuda for their help in the field and to Luis Javier de la Garza Treviňo for help with the Matlab code. We are grateful to Yoram Ayal, Carly Golodets, Merav Seifan, David Storch and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: US JK. Performed the experiments: US. Analyzed the data: US. Wrote the paper: US JK YL KT.

References

1. Ricklefs RE, Schluter D. Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives: University of Chicago press, Chicago; 1993.
2. Brown JH. Macroecology: University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1995.
3. Buckley LB, Rodda GH, Jetz W. Thermal and energetic constraints on ectotherm abundance: a global test using lizards. Ecology. 2008; 89: 48–55. pmid:18376546
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Kaspari M, Alonso L, O'Donnell S. Three energy variables predict ant abundance at a geographical scale. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci. 2000; 267: 485–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Meehan TD, Jetz W, Brown JH. Energetic determinants of abundance in winter landbird communities. Ecol Lett. 2004; 7: 532–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Srivastava DS, Lawton JH. Why more productive sites have more species: an experimental test of theory using tree-hole communities. Am Nat. 1998; 152: 510–29. pmid:18811361
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Bergman E. Changes in abundances of two percids, Perca fluviatilis and Gymnocephalus cernuus, along a productivity gradient: relations to feeding strategies and competitive abilities. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1991; 48: 536–45.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Hurlbert AH. Species-energy relationships and habitat complexity in bird communities. Ecol Lett. 2004; 7: 714–20.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ. The relationship between animal abundance and body size: a review of the mechanisms. Adv Ecol Res. 1999; 28: 181–210.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology. 2004; 85: 1771–89.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Damuth J. Interspecific allometry of population-density in mammals and other animals: the independence of body-mass and population energy-use. Biol J Linnean Soc. 1987; 31: 193–246.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. White EP, Ernest SKM, Kerkhoff AJ, Enquist BJ. Relationships between body size and abundance in ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007; 22: 323–30. pmid:17399851
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Aava B. Primary productivity can affect mammalian body size frequency distributions. Oikos. 2001; 93: 205–12.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Kaspari M. Global energy gradients and size in colonial organisms: worker mass and worker number in ant colonies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 5079–83. pmid:15788538
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Olson VA, Davies RG, Orme CDL, Thomas GH, Meiri S, Blackburn TM, et al. Global biogeography and ecology of body size in birds. Ecol Lett. 2009; 12: 249–59. pmid:19245587
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Huston MA, Wolverton S. Regulation of animal size by eNPP, Bergmann's rule, and related phenomena. Ecol Monogr. 2011; 81: 349–405.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO. The Ants: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA; 1990.
18. Dunn RR, Agosti D, Andersen AN, Arnan X, Bruhl CA, Cerda X, et al. Climatic drivers of hemispheric asymmetry in global patterns of ant species richness. Ecol Lett. 2009; 12: 324–33. pmid:19292793
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Sanders NJ, Lessard JP, Fitzpatrick MC, Dunn RR. Temperature, but not productivity or geometry, predicts elevational diversity gradients in ants across spatial grains. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2007; 16: 640–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Adler FR, Gordon DM. Optimization, conflict, and nonoverlapping foraging ranges in ants. Am Nat. 2003; 162: 529–43. pmid:14618533
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Davidson DW. Foraging ecology and community organization in desert seed eating ants. Ecology. 1977; 58: 725–37.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Gordon DM, Holmes S, Nacu S. The short-term regulation of foraging in harvester ants. Behav Ecol. 2008; 19: 217–22.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Sanders NJ, Gordon DM. Resources and the flexible allocation of work in the desert ant, Aphaenogaster cockerelli. Insect Soc. 2002; 49: 371–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Crist TO, Macmahon JA. Harvester ant foraging and shrub steppe seeds—interactions of seed resources and seed use. Ecology. 1992; 73: 1768–79.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Adams ES. Boundary disputes in the territorial ant Azteca trigona: effects of asymmetries in colony size. Anim Behav. 1990; 39: 321–8.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Holway DA, Case TJ. Effects of colony-level variation on competitive ability in the invasive Argentine ant. Anim Behav. 2001; 61: 1181–92.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Segev U, Ziv Y. Consequences of behavioral vs. numerical dominance on foraging activity of desert seed-eating ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2012; 66: 623–32.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Tschinkel WR, Adams ES, Macom T. Territory area and colony size in the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. J Anim Ecol. 1995; 64: 473–80.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Adler FR, LeBrun EG, Feener DH. Maintaining diversity in an ant community: Modeling, extending, and testing the dominance-discovery trade-off. Am Nat. 2007; 169: 323–33. pmid:17230402
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Palmer TM. Wars of attrition: colony size determines competitive outcomes in a guild of African acacia ants. Anim Behav. 2004; 68: 993–1004.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. King JR. Size-abundance relationships in Florida ant communities reveal how ants break the energetic equivalence rule. Ecol Entomol. 2010; 35: 287–98.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Oster GF, Wilson EO. Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects: Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 1978 1978. 1–352 p.
33. Sanders NJ, Gordon DM. Resource-dependent interactions and the organization of desert ant communities. Ecology. 2003; 84: 1024–31.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Callaway RM, Walker LR. Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology. 1997; 78: 1958–65.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Andersen AN. A classification of Australian ant communities, based on functional-groups which parallel plant life-forms in relation to stress and disturbance. J Biogeogr. 1995; 22: 15–29.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Arnan X, Gaucherel C, Andersen AN. Dominance and species co-occurrence in highly diverse ant communities: a test of the interstitial hypothesis and discovery of a three-tiered competition cascade. Oecologia. 2011; 166: 783–94. pmid:21290149
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Andersen AN. Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: a comparison with Australia. J Biogeogr. 1997; 24: 433–60.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Segev U. Regional patterns of ant-species richness in an arid region: the importance of climate and biogeography. J Arid Environ. 2010; 74: 646–52.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Rosenzweig ML. Net primary productivity of terrestrial communities: prediction from climatological data. Am Nat. 1968; 102: 67–74.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Segev U, Tielborger K, Lubin Y, Kigel J. Consequences of climate and body size on the foraging performance of seed-eating ants. Ecol Entomol. 2014; 39: 427–35.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Clarke A, Johnston NM. Scaling of metabolic rate with body mass and temperature in teleost fish. J Anim Ecol. 1999; 68: 893–905.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Avgar T, Giladi I, Nathan R. Linking traits of foraging animals to spatial patterns of plants: social and solitary ants generate opposing patterns of surviving seeds. Ecol Lett. 2008; 11: 224–34. pmid:18047586
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z. How are diversity and productivity related? In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D, editors. Species diversity in ecological communities: University of Chicago press, Chicago; 1993. p. 52–65.
44. Evans KL, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. Species-energy relationships at the macroecological scale: a review of the mechanisms. Biol Rev. 2005; 80: 1–25. pmid:15727036
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Golodets C, Sternberg M, Kigel J, Boeken B, Henkin Z, Seligman NG, et al. From desert to Mediterranean rangelands: will increasing drought and inter-annual rainfall variability affect herbaceous annual primary productivity? Clim Change. 2013; 119: 785–98.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Ofer J. Let’s go to the ant. A field guide to the ants of Israel.: Yuval Ofer publishing, Jerusalem (In Hebrew). 2000.
47. Kugler J. Insects. In: Alon A, editor. Plants and animals of the land of Israel. 3: Ministry of defense publishing house and the Society for Protecting of Nature, Israel (In Hebrew); 1989.
48. Brown WL. Diversity of ants. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR, editors. Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London; 2000. p. 45–79.
49. Steinberger Y, Leschner H, Schmida A. Activity pattern of harvester ants (Messor spp.) in the Negev Desert ecosystem. J Arid Environ. 1992; 23: 169–76.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Gotelli NJ. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology. 2000; 81: 2606–21.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Ryti RT, Case TJ. Overdispersion of ant colonies: a test of hypotheses. Oecologia. 1986; 69: 446–53.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL. EcoSim: null models software for ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear.; 2005.
53. Stone L, Roberts A. The checkerboard score and species distributions. Oecologia. 1990; 85: 74–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Clark PJ, Evans FC. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology. 1954; 35: 445–53.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Wright DH. Species-energy theory: an extension of species-area theory. Oikos. 1983; 41: 496–506.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Deslippe RJ, Savolainen R. Role of food-supply in structuring a population of Formica ants. J Anim Ecol. 1994; 63: 756–64.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Kaspari M, Weiser MD. Energy, taxonomic aggregation, and the geography of ant abundance. Ecography. 2012; 35: 65–72.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Deslippe RJ, Savolainen R. Mechanisms of competition in a guild of formicine ants. Oikos. 1995; 72: 67–73.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Welden CW, Slauson WL. The Intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications Q Rev Biol. 1986; 61: 23–44. pmid:3961095
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Tschinkel WR. The Fire Ants: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA; 2006.
61. Wilson EO. The Insect Societies: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA; 1971.
62. Geraghty MJ, Dunn RR, Sanders NJ. Body size, colony size, and range size in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): are patterns along elevational and latitudinal gradients consistent with Bergmann's rule? Myrmecol News. 2007; 10: 51–8.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Ferguson-Gow H, Sumner S, Bourke AFG, Jones KE. Colony size predicts division of labour in attine ants. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2014; 281: 20141411.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Schemske DW, Mittelbach GG, Cornell HV, Sobel JM, Roy K. Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2009; 40: 245–69.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR, Rahbek C. Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107: 5030–5. pmid:20194760
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Ricklefs RE, Schluter D. Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives: University of Chicago press, Chicago; 1993.

[ref2] 2. Brown JH. Macroecology: University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1995.

[ref3] 3. Buckley LB, Rodda GH, Jetz W. Thermal and energetic constraints on ectotherm abundance: a global test using lizards. Ecology. 2008; 89: 48–55. pmid:18376546
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[4] View Article

[5] PubMed/NCBI

[6] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Kaspari M, Alonso L, O'Donnell S. Three energy variables predict ant abundance at a geographical scale. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci. 2000; 267: 485–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Meehan TD, Jetz W, Brown JH. Energetic determinants of abundance in winter landbird communities. Ecol Lett. 2004; 7: 532–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Srivastava DS, Lawton JH. Why more productive sites have more species: an experimental test of theory using tree-hole communities. Am Nat. 1998; 152: 510–29. pmid:18811361
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Bergman E. Changes in abundances of two percids, Perca fluviatilis and Gymnocephalus cernuus, along a productivity gradient: relations to feeding strategies and competitive abilities. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1991; 48: 536–45.
View Article
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Hurlbert AH. Species-energy relationships and habitat complexity in bird communities. Ecol Lett. 2004; 7: 714–20.
View Article
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ. The relationship between animal abundance and body size: a review of the mechanisms. Adv Ecol Res. 1999; 28: 181–210.
View Article
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology. 2004; 85: 1771–89.
View Article
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Damuth J. Interspecific allometry of population-density in mammals and other animals: the independence of body-mass and population energy-use. Biol J Linnean Soc. 1987; 31: 193–246.
View Article
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. White EP, Ernest SKM, Kerkhoff AJ, Enquist BJ. Relationships between body size and abundance in ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007; 22: 323–30. pmid:17399851
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[33] View Article

[34] PubMed/NCBI

[35] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Aava B. Primary productivity can affect mammalian body size frequency distributions. Oikos. 2001; 93: 205–12.
View Article
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Kaspari M. Global energy gradients and size in colonial organisms: worker mass and worker number in ant colonies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 5079–83. pmid:15788538
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Olson VA, Davies RG, Orme CDL, Thomas GH, Meiri S, Blackburn TM, et al. Global biogeography and ecology of body size in birds. Ecol Lett. 2009; 12: 249–59. pmid:19245587
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] PubMed/NCBI

[46] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Huston MA, Wolverton S. Regulation of animal size by eNPP, Bergmann's rule, and related phenomena. Ecol Monogr. 2011; 81: 349–405.
View Article
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO. The Ants: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA; 1990.

[ref18] 18. Dunn RR, Agosti D, Andersen AN, Arnan X, Bruhl CA, Cerda X, et al. Climatic drivers of hemispheric asymmetry in global patterns of ant species richness. Ecol Lett. 2009; 12: 324–33. pmid:19292793
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] PubMed/NCBI

[54] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Sanders NJ, Lessard JP, Fitzpatrick MC, Dunn RR. Temperature, but not productivity or geometry, predicts elevational diversity gradients in ants across spatial grains. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2007; 16: 640–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Adler FR, Gordon DM. Optimization, conflict, and nonoverlapping foraging ranges in ants. Am Nat. 2003; 162: 529–43. pmid:14618533
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Davidson DW. Foraging ecology and community organization in desert seed eating ants. Ecology. 1977; 58: 725–37.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Gordon DM, Holmes S, Nacu S. The short-term regulation of foraging in harvester ants. Behav Ecol. 2008; 19: 217–22.
View Article
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Sanders NJ, Gordon DM. Resources and the flexible allocation of work in the desert ant, Aphaenogaster cockerelli. Insect Soc. 2002; 49: 371–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Crist TO, Macmahon JA. Harvester ant foraging and shrub steppe seeds—interactions of seed resources and seed use. Ecology. 1992; 73: 1768–79.
View Article
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Adams ES. Boundary disputes in the territorial ant Azteca trigona: effects of asymmetries in colony size. Anim Behav. 1990; 39: 321–8.
View Article
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Holway DA, Case TJ. Effects of colony-level variation on competitive ability in the invasive Argentine ant. Anim Behav. 2001; 61: 1181–92.
View Article
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Segev U, Ziv Y. Consequences of behavioral vs. numerical dominance on foraging activity of desert seed-eating ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2012; 66: 623–32.
View Article
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Tschinkel WR, Adams ES, Macom T. Territory area and colony size in the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. J Anim Ecol. 1995; 64: 473–80.
View Article
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Adler FR, LeBrun EG, Feener DH. Maintaining diversity in an ant community: Modeling, extending, and testing the dominance-discovery trade-off. Am Nat. 2007; 169: 323–33. pmid:17230402
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] PubMed/NCBI

[89] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Palmer TM. Wars of attrition: colony size determines competitive outcomes in a guild of African acacia ants. Anim Behav. 2004; 68: 993–1004.
View Article
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. King JR. Size-abundance relationships in Florida ant communities reveal how ants break the energetic equivalence rule. Ecol Entomol. 2010; 35: 287–98.
View Article
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Oster GF, Wilson EO. Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects: Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 1978 1978. 1–352 p.

[ref33] 33. Sanders NJ, Gordon DM. Resource-dependent interactions and the organization of desert ant communities. Ecology. 2003; 84: 1024–31.
View Article
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Callaway RM, Walker LR. Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology. 1997; 78: 1958–65.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Andersen AN. A classification of Australian ant communities, based on functional-groups which parallel plant life-forms in relation to stress and disturbance. J Biogeogr. 1995; 22: 15–29.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Arnan X, Gaucherel C, Andersen AN. Dominance and species co-occurrence in highly diverse ant communities: a test of the interstitial hypothesis and discovery of a three-tiered competition cascade. Oecologia. 2011; 166: 783–94. pmid:21290149
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Andersen AN. Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: a comparison with Australia. J Biogeogr. 1997; 24: 433–60.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Segev U. Regional patterns of ant-species richness in an arid region: the importance of climate and biogeography. J Arid Environ. 2010; 74: 646–52.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Rosenzweig ML. Net primary productivity of terrestrial communities: prediction from climatological data. Am Nat. 1968; 102: 67–74.
View Article
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Segev U, Tielborger K, Lubin Y, Kigel J. Consequences of climate and body size on the foraging performance of seed-eating ants. Ecol Entomol. 2014; 39: 427–35.
View Article
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Clarke A, Johnston NM. Scaling of metabolic rate with body mass and temperature in teleost fish. J Anim Ecol. 1999; 68: 893–905.
View Article
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Avgar T, Giladi I, Nathan R. Linking traits of foraging animals to spatial patterns of plants: social and solitary ants generate opposing patterns of surviving seeds. Ecol Lett. 2008; 11: 224–34. pmid:18047586
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] PubMed/NCBI

[128] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z. How are diversity and productivity related? In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D, editors. Species diversity in ecological communities: University of Chicago press, Chicago; 1993. p. 52–65.

[ref44] 44. Evans KL, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. Species-energy relationships at the macroecological scale: a review of the mechanisms. Biol Rev. 2005; 80: 1–25. pmid:15727036
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Golodets C, Sternberg M, Kigel J, Boeken B, Henkin Z, Seligman NG, et al. From desert to Mediterranean rangelands: will increasing drought and inter-annual rainfall variability affect herbaceous annual primary productivity? Clim Change. 2013; 119: 785–98.
View Article
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Ofer J. Let’s go to the ant. A field guide to the ants of Israel.: Yuval Ofer publishing, Jerusalem (In Hebrew). 2000.

[ref47] 47. Kugler J. Insects. In: Alon A, editor. Plants and animals of the land of Israel. 3: Ministry of defense publishing house and the Society for Protecting of Nature, Israel (In Hebrew); 1989.

[ref48] 48. Brown WL. Diversity of ants. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR, editors. Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London; 2000. p. 45–79.

[ref49] 49. Steinberger Y, Leschner H, Schmida A. Activity pattern of harvester ants (Messor spp.) in the Negev Desert ecosystem. J Arid Environ. 1992; 23: 169–76.
View Article
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Gotelli NJ. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology. 2000; 81: 2606–21.
View Article
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Ryti RT, Case TJ. Overdispersion of ant colonies: a test of hypotheses. Oecologia. 1986; 69: 446–53.
View Article
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL. EcoSim: null models software for ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear.; 2005.

[ref53] 53. Stone L, Roberts A. The checkerboard score and species distributions. Oecologia. 1990; 85: 74–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Clark PJ, Evans FC. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology. 1954; 35: 445–53.
View Article
Google Scholar

[154] View Article

[155] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Wright DH. Species-energy theory: an extension of species-area theory. Oikos. 1983; 41: 496–506.
View Article
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Deslippe RJ, Savolainen R. Role of food-supply in structuring a population of Formica ants. J Anim Ecol. 1994; 63: 756–64.
View Article
Google Scholar

[160] View Article

[161] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Kaspari M, Weiser MD. Energy, taxonomic aggregation, and the geography of ant abundance. Ecography. 2012; 35: 65–72.
View Article
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Deslippe RJ, Savolainen R. Mechanisms of competition in a guild of formicine ants. Oikos. 1995; 72: 67–73.
View Article
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Welden CW, Slauson WL. The Intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications Q Rev Biol. 1986; 61: 23–44. pmid:3961095
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] PubMed/NCBI

[171] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Tschinkel WR. The Fire Ants: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA; 2006.

[ref61] 61. Wilson EO. The Insect Societies: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA; 1971.

[ref62] 62. Geraghty MJ, Dunn RR, Sanders NJ. Body size, colony size, and range size in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): are patterns along elevational and latitudinal gradients consistent with Bergmann's rule? Myrmecol News. 2007; 10: 51–8.
View Article
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Ferguson-Gow H, Sumner S, Bourke AFG, Jones KE. Colony size predicts division of labour in attine ants. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2014; 281: 20141411.
View Article
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Schemske DW, Mittelbach GG, Cornell HV, Sobel JM, Roy K. Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2009; 40: 245–69.
View Article
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR, Rahbek C. Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107: 5030–5. pmid:20194760
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] PubMed/NCBI

[186] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Study sites

Ant colony density and foraging activity

Generalist species.

Specialized seed eaters.

Competition intensity

Spatial partitioning of species at baits.

Spatial distribution of ant colonies.

Results

Ant colony density and forager number

Generalist species.

Specialized seed eaters.

Competition intensity

Generalist species.

Specialized seed eaters.

Discussion

Specialized seed eaters and the ‘productivity hypothesis’

Generalist ants and the ‘productivity-based thinning hypothesis’

Conclusions

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. Relationships between forager body size and mean annual precipitation for generalist species and specialized seed-eaters.

S2 Fig. Relationships between plant biomass and precipitation (Figure a) or between ambient temperature and precipitation (Figure b).

S3 Fig. Proportion of total occurrences of ant species at the different sites according to bait type.

S4 Fig. The allometric scaling relationship between forager number and forager body size.

S1 Table. Averages of colony density, forager number (±se) and forager size (mm) (±se) of the generalist species monitored in the study sites in 2007–2008 and the specialized seed-eaters in 2008–2009.

S2 Table. Co-occurrence patterns of generalist ant species at food baits in the years 2007 and 2008.

S3 Table. Species activity monitored at the experimental baits for the generalist species (2007–2008) and at natural food patches for the specialized seed-eaters (2008–2009).

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References