The Role of Competition in Structuring Ant Communities: A Review

Abstract

Understanding the mechanisms that determine local patterns of diversity is among the primary goals of ecology. Among these mechanisms, competition is mentioned as the regulatory factor structuring biological communities, despite the fact that the concept is controversial in ecology. Myrmecologists, however, for the most part, view competition as one of the main factors structuring ant communities. Two hypotheses on the mechanisms underlining species coexistence have received support from empirical studies. The first predicts a balance between competition and colonization, which form a continuum along which species are distributed. Species at one extreme are good at competing and bad at colonizing, whereas species on the opposite end are bad competitors and good colonizers. The interactions among various species over time are in a state of constant flux along this continuum. The second hypothesis predicts spatial clustering. According to it, ecologically dominant species have an aggregated spatial distribution, which would increase competition among individuals and the species' coexistence with subordinate species. Beyond these two, there are the trade-off and the mosaic theories, which involve competition and promote coexistence, and also the null models, which are used to determine if competition is responsible for ant community structures. In the Myrmecology, the competition is par excellence as one of the main factors structuring ant communities. Some hypotheses have been supported in empirical studies of natural communities as mechanisms for species coexistence. The first is the balance competition/colonization, species were distributed along a continuum between good and bad contestants competing colonizing up bad and good colonizers, and their interactions over time would allow a state of constant flux along this continuum. The second hypothesis is the spatial clustering, in which ecologically dominant species have an aggregated spatial distribution, which would increase competition among individuals and species coexistence with subordinates. Besides these there are the trade-off theory and the mosaics, which involve competition and promote coexistence, and also the null models, which are used to determine if competition structures communities of ants. However, the objective is to demonstrate the main mechanisms that involve competition in structuring ant communities

Ant dominance hierarchy determines the nested pattern in ant-plant networks

“…Also, even though it is a quite small area (as mentioned above), the variety of habitats found within the area is such that one 'needs' to sample all places. Many studies have been published from this study area by our research group using this same method (see Rico-Gray, 1993;Díaz-Castelazo et al, 2010, 2013Rico-Gray et al, 2012;Sánchez-Galván et al, 2012).…”

“…Inter-and intra-specific competition among ants is considered one of the main mechanisms structuring local ant assemblages (Andersen, 1992;Parr et al, 2005;Hölldobler & Wilson, 2008;Soares, 2013). This strong role of competition possibly occurs because most ant species are central place foragers and have similar requirements (nesting site and food supplies), resulting in less overlapping of their foraging areas (López, Serrano & Acosta, 1994).…”

“…Here we investigated the role of ant dominance hierarchy structuring an ant–plant network. We postulated that due to the important role of competition in structuring many ant communities around the world (Parr et al ., ; Hölldobler & Wilson, ; Baccaro et al ., ; Soares, ), competition among ants could also contribute to the structure of ecological networks involving ants and EFN‐bearing plants. Specifically, we hypothesized that ants found in the central core of generalists are competitively superior to other peripheral ant species, mainly because these species have the ability to maintain stable interactions with EFN‐bearing plants (Sánchez‐Galván et al ., ; Lange et al ., ; Dáttilo et al ., , ).…”

A multidimensional functional trait analysis of resource exploitation in European ants

“…played by behavioral dominance in the primary, and thus most important, trait dimension related to resource exploitation in ants supports the assertion that competition is a hallmark feature of ant ecology when it comes to explaining species coexistence. The importance of behavioral dominance as a central trait in ant ecology has been underscored by a large number of publications and numerous recent reviews (e.g., , Soares 2013.…”

Effect of agricultural land-use change on ant dominance hierarchy and food preferences in a temperate oak forest

“…However, there is currently a contentious debate about the exact role of competition on the structure of ant communities and ant dominance hierarchies (Arnan et al, 2018). Evidence has shown that ant species exert an influence on other ant species in the vicinity of their nests and that they compete for high-value food resources, but the effects of this competition at the community level are unclear (Soares, 2013; Arnan et al, 2018). Also, factors such as high temperatures, invasive species, parasitoids, and dietary differentiation have been observed to alter the role of competition on the structuring of ant communities, thereby facilitating the coexistence of ants with different competitive abilities (Parr & Gibb, 2012; Cerdá, Arnan & Retana, 2013; Houadria et al, 2015).…”