Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: The University of Chicago Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
The mechanisms leading to structure in local assemblages are controversial. On the one hand, assemblage structure is thought to be the outcome of local interactions determined by the properties of species and their responses to the local environment. Alternatively, this structure has been shown to be an emergent property of assemblages of identical individuals or of random sampling of a regional assemblage.\ud \ud In ants at baits, a combination of environmental stress and interspecific competition is widely held to lead to a unimodal relationship between the abundance of dominant ants and species richness. It is thought that in comparatively adverse environments, both abundance and richness are low. As habitats become more favorable, abundance increases until the abundance of dominant ants is so high that they exclude those that are subordinate and so depress richness. Here we demonstrate empirically that this relationship is remarkably similar across three continents. Using a null model approach, we then show that the ascending part of the relationship is largely constrained to take this form not simply as a consequence of stress but also as a result of the shape of abundance frequency distributions. While the form of the species-abundance frequency distribution can also produce the descending part of the relationship, interspecific competition might lead to it too. Scatter about the relationship, which is generally not discussed in the literature, may well be a consequence of resource availability and environmental patchiness. Our results draw attention to the significance of regional processes in structuring ant assemblages.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa;
    • 2. Spatial, Physiological and Conservation Ecology Group, Department of Botany and Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa;
    • 3. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Tropical Ecosystems Research Centre, PMB 44 Winnellie, Northern Territory 0822, Australia;
    • 4. Biodiversity and Macroecology Group, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom
    • Submitted November 27, 2003; Accepted September 23, 2004; Electronically published March 8, 2005
    • Albrecht, M., and N. J. Gotelli. 2001. Spatial and temporal niche partitioning in grassland ants. Oecologia (Berlin) 126:134-141.
    • Andersen, A. N. 1992. Regulation of “momentary” diversity by dominant species in exceptionally rich ant communities of the Australian seasonal tropics. American Naturalist 140:401-420.
    • ---. 1995. A classification of Australian ant communities, based on functional groups which parallel plant life-forms in relation to stress and disturbance. Journal of Biogeography 22:15-29.
    • ---. 1997a. Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: a comparison with Australia. Journal of Biogeography 24:433-460.
    • ---. 1997b. Using ants as bioindicators: multiscale issues in ant community ecology. Conservation Ecology 1:8.
    • ---. 2000. A global ecology of rainforest ants: functional groups in relation to environmental stress and disturbance. Pages 25-34 in D. Agosti, J. D. Majer, L. E. Alonso, and T. R. Schultz, eds. Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC.
    • Andersen, A. N., and A. D. Patel. 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 (Berlin) 98:15-24.
    • Atkinson, W. D., and B. Shorrocks. 1981. Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource: a simulation model. Journal of Animal Ecology 50:461-471.
    • ---. 1984. Aggregation of larval Diptera over discrete and ephemeral breeding sites: the implications for co-existence. American Naturalist 124:336-351.
    • Bell, G. 2001. Neutral macroecology. Science 293:2413-2418.
    • ---. 2003. The interpretation of biological surveys. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270:2531-2542.
    • Bestelmeyer, B. T. 1997. Stress tolerance in some Chacoan dolichoderine ants: implications for community organization and distribution. Journal of Arid Environments 35:297-310.
    • ---. 2000. The trade-off between thermal tolerance and behavioral dominance in a subtropical South American ant community. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:998-1009.
    • Blackburn, T. M., and K. J. Gaston. 2001. Local avian assemblages as random draws from regional pools. Ecography 24:50-58.
    • Cade, B. S., and B. R. Noon. 2003. A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:412-420.
    • Cade, B. S., and J. D. Richards. 1996. Permutation tests for least absolute deviation regression. Biometrics 52:886-902.
    • ---. 2001. User manual for BLOSSOM statistical software. U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO.
    • Caley, M. J., and D. Schluter. 1997. The relationship between local and regional diversity. Ecology 78:70-80.
    • Cerda´, X., J. Retana, and S. Cros. 1997. Thermal disruption of transitive hierarchies in Mediterranean ant communities. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:363-374.
    • Cerda´, X., J. Retana, and A. Manzaneda. 1998. The role of competition by dominants and temperature in the foraging of subordinate species in Mediterranean ant communities. Oecologia (Berlin) 117:404-412.
    • Currie, D. J., and A. P. Francis. 2004. Regional versus climatic effect on taxon richness in angiosperms: reply to Qian and Ricklefs. American Naturalist 163:780-785.
    • Fellers, J. H. 1987. Interference and exploitation in a guild of woodland ants. Ecology 68:1466-1478.
    • Gaston, K. J. 2000. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405:220- 227.
    • Gaston, K. J., and T. M. Blackburn. 2000. Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
    • Gaston, K. J., and S. L. Chown. 1999. Geographic range size and speciation. Pages 236-259 in A. E. Magurran and R. M. May, eds. Evolution of biological diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Gibb, H., and D. F. Hochuli. 2004. Removal experiment reveals limited effects of a behaviorally dominant species on ant assemblages. Ecology 85:648-657.
    • Giller, P. S., and B. M. Doube. 1994. Spatial and temporal cooccurrence of competitors in Southern African dung beetle communities. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:629-643.
    • Gotelli, N. J. 2000. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81:2606-2621.
    • ---. 2001. Research frontiers in null model analysis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 10:337-343.
    • Gotelli, N. J., and A. M. Ellison. 2002. Assembly rules for New England ant assemblages. Oikos 99:591-599.
    • Halley, J., and P. Inchausti. 2002. Lognormality in ecological time series. Oikos 99:518-530.
    • Ho¨lldobler, B., and E. O. Wilson. 1990. The ants. Springer, Berlin Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
    • Ives, A. R. 1991. Aggregation and coexistence of a carrion fly community. Ecological Monographs 61:75-94.
    • Kolasa, J., and C. D. Rollo. 1991. Introduction: the heterogeneity of heterogeneities: a glossary. Pages 1-23 in J. Kolasa and S. T. A. Pickett, eds. Ecological heterogeneity. Springer, Berlin.
    • Kouki, J., and I. Hanski. 1995. Population aggregation facilitates coexistence of many competing carrion fly species. Oikos 72:223- 227.
    • Krijger, C. L., and J. G. Sevenster. 2001. Higher species diversity explained by stronger spatial aggregation across six Neotropical Drosophila communities. Ecology Letters 4:106-115.
    • Lawton, J. H. 1999. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177- 192.
    • Magurran, A. E. 2003. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
    • Majer, J. D., J. H. C. Delabie, and M. R. B. Smith. 1994. Arboreal ant community patterns in Brazilian cocoa farms. Biotropica 23: 173-181.
    • Morrison, L. W. 1996. Community organization in a recently assembled fauna: the case of Polynesian ants. Oecologia (Berlin) 107: 243-256.
    • Palmer, T. M. 2003. Spatial habitat heterogeneity influences competition and coexistence in an African ant guild. Ecology 84:2843- 2855.
    • Parr, C. L., H. G. Robertson, H. C. Biggs, and S. L. Chown. 2004. Response of African savanna ants to long-term fire regimes. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:630-642.
    • Qian, H., and R. E. Ricklefs. 2004. Taxon richness and climate in angiosperms: is there really a globally consistent relationship that precludes region effects? American Naturalist 163:773-779.
    • Retana, J., and X. Cerda´. 2000. Patterns of diversity and composition of Mediterranean ground ant communities tracking spatial and temporal variability in the thermal environment. Oecologia (Berlin) 123:436-444.
    • Ribas, C. R., and J. H. Schoereder. 2002. Are all ant mosaics caused by competition? Oecologia (Berlin) 131:606-611.
    • Ricklefs, R. E. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes. Science 235:167-171.
    • ---. 2004. A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity. Ecology Letters 7:1-15.
    • Sanders, N. J., and D. M. Gordon. 2002. Resources and the flexible allocation of work in the desert ant, Aphaenogaster cockerelli. Insectes Sociaux 49:371-379.
    • Sanders, N. J., N. J. Gotelli, N. E. Heller, and D. M. Gordon. 2003. Community disassembly by an invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100:2474-2477.
    • Savolainen, R., and K. Vepsa¨la¨inen. 1988. A competition hierarchy among boreal ants: impact on resource partitioning and community structure. Oikos 51:135-155.
    • Simberloff, D. 2004. Community ecology: is it time to move on? American Naturalist 163:787-799.
    • Smith, F. 2001. Historical regulation of local species richness across a geographical region. Ecology 82:792-801.
    • Sugihara, G., L. Bersier, T. R. E. Southwood, S. L. Pimm, and R. M. May. 2003. Predicted correspondence between species abundances and dendrograms of niche similarities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100:5246-5251.
    • Taylor, L. R., I. P. Woiwood, and J. N. Perry. 1978. The density dependence of spatial behavior and the rarity of randomness. Journal of Animal Ecology 47:383-406.
    • Tokeshi, M. 1993. Species abundance patterns and community structure. Advances in Ecological Research 24:111-186.
    • ---. 1999. Species co-existence: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
    • Warren, M., M. A. McGeoch, and S. L. Chown. 2003. Predicting abundance from occupancy: a test for an aggregated insect assemblage. Journal of Animal Ecology 72:468-477.
    • Weiher, E., and P. Keddy, eds. 1999. Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    • Wiens, J. A. 2000. Ecological heterogeneity: an ontogeny of concepts and approaches. Pages 9-31 in M. J. Hutchings, E. A. John, and A. J. A. Stewart, eds. The ecological consequences of environmental heterogeneity. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article