Responses of ant communities to disturbance: Five principles for understanding the disturbance dynamics of a globally dominant faunal group

Abstract

Ecological disturbance is fundamental to the dynamics of biological communities, yet a conceptual framework for understanding the responses of faunal communities to disturbance remains elusive. Here, I propose five principles for understanding the disturbance dynamics of ants—a globally dominant faunal group that is widely used as bioindicators in land management, which appear to have wide applicability to other taxa. These principles are as follows: (1) The most important effects of habitat disturbance on ants are typically indirect, through its effects on habitat structure, microclimate, resource availability and competitive interactions; (2) habitat openness is a key driver of variation in ant communities; (3) ant species responses to disturbance are to a large degree determined by their responses to habitat openness; (4) the same disturbance will have different effects on ants in different habitats, because of different impacts on habitat openness; and (5) ant community responses to the same disturbance will vary according to ant functional composition and biogeographical history in relation to habitat openness. I illustrate these principles using results primarily from studies of ant responses to fire, a dominant agent of disturbance globally, to provide a common disturbance currency for comparative analysis. I argue that many of the principles also apply to other faunal groups and so can be considered as general ecological “laws.” As is the case for ants, many impacts of habitat disturbance on other faunal groups are fundamentally related to habitat openness, the effects of disturbance on it and the functional composition of species in relation to it.

The digging‐in effect on ant studies with pitfall traps: influence of type of habitat and sampling time

“…Type of habitat, open vs. closed, had a significant effect on the ant communities in control traps, as expected – the influence of vegetative cover on ant fauna is well established (Greenslade & Greenslade, ; Andersen, ). However, the effect of habitat type disappeared when the DE was considered.…”

“…Thus, the community as a whole seemed to display some sensitivity to the DE, but this was largely determined by the presence of particular species. Type of habitat, open vs. closed, had a significant effect on the ant communities in control traps, as expectedthe influence of vegetative cover on ant fauna is well established (Greenslade & Greenslade, 1977;Andersen, 2018). However, the effect of habitat type disappeared when the DE was considered.…”

Grassland harvesting alters ant community trophic structure: An isotopic study in tallgrass prairies

“…Furthermore, understanding how disturbance affects both the consumer and resource isotopic signatures can offer insight into the mechanisms by which disturbances affect communities and important ecological functions including seed dispersal and predation, aphid tending, top-down control of insect herbivores, and decomposition and nutrient cycling (Agosti, Majer, Alonso, & Schultz, 2000;Blomqvist, Olff, Blaauw, Bongers, & Putten, 2000;Culver & Beattie, 1980;Dostál, 2005). In our previous work in tallgrass prairies, we document changes in both plant and ant diversity following biomass removal (Kim, Bartel, Wills, Landis, & Gratton, 2018;Kim et al, 2017;Spiesman, Bennett, Isaacs, & Gratton, 2017), in part to due to greater openness and changes in the competitive interactions of ants following the disturbance (Andersen, 2019). These changes in habitat structure and resource availability could also affect the feeding behavior of ants within these grasslands (Kaspari, Donoso, Lucas, Zumbusch, & Kay, 2012).…”

“…We focus on ants as consumer species because they have diverse diets including plant-derived material such as seeds, nectar, and honeydew from sucking insects, and animal-derived materials including herbivores, predators, and microarthropods such as collembola and springtails. In our previous work in tallgrass prairies, we document changes in both plant and ant diversity following biomass removal (Kim, Bartel, Wills, Landis, & Gratton, 2018;Kim et al, 2017;Spiesman, Bennett, Isaacs, & Gratton, 2017), in part to due to greater openness and changes in the competitive interactions of ants following the disturbance (Andersen, 2019). While there are a few studies that have tested whether disturbance affects trophic structure of ants (e.g., Penick, Savage, & Dunn, 2015;Resasco et al, 2012;Woodcock et al, 2013), these studies did not control for site-level differences in isotopic signatures of baseline resources (i.e., plants) which could also vary with disturbance.…”

Ants as diaspore removers of non‐myrmecochorous plants: a meta‐analysis

“…This group of plant species represents most angiosperms (Moles et al ) and, although diaspores can be primarily dispersed by vertebrates, most of diaspore dispersal outcome rely on the secondary dispersal services provided by non‐vertebrate dispersers, mainly ants (Pizo and Oliveira , Christianini and Oliveira , , Magalhães et al ). These invertebrates are highly resilient to habitat disturbance (Anjos et al , Oliveira et al , Andersen ) and, because of it, can exert disproportional effect on the demography of plant species occurring in vertebrate‐free habitats. Therefore, understanding more about the role of invertebrates as secondary disperser in vertebrate‐free conditions seems to be an important step to improve our knowledge about the functioning of seed dispersal in human‐depauperated habitats.…”