Comparison of Ant's Functional Traits in Resource Utilization

WU Zi-wen; LU Zhi-xing; CHEN You-qing

Volume 28 Issue 5

Article Contents

Turn off MathJax

Article Navigation > Forest Research > 2015 > 28(5): 744-748

Citation:

Comparison of Ant's Functional Traits in Resource Utilization

1.
Research Institute of Resources Insects, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Kunming 650224, Yunnan, China

Received Date: 2015-04-20

Abstract

In order to reveal the difference of functional traits of ants and study on ant's functional diversity, the functional traits of 17 ant species were measured. The results were as follows: (1) There was difference of functional traits in terms of resource utilization among ant species. Pachycondyla rufipes (Jerdon) was the largest, and Technomyrmex albipes (Smith) was the smallest one in the aspect of food consumption amount. Technomyrmex bicolor Emery and Iridomyrmex anceps (Roger), Camponotus nicobarensis (Mayr) and Pachycondyla zhengi Xu, Gnamptogenys bicolor (Emery) and Aphaenogaster beccarii Emery showed similarity in food consumption amount. (2) In the aspect of mode of resource utilization, Oecophylla smaragdina (Fabricius) has the longest relative legs, but their functions were prior to nesting, the 2 species of Aphaenogaster, 3 species of Camponotus and the Iridomyrmex anceps (Roger) could run fast to acquire resource, the rest 10 ant species had better resource utilization abilities in complex habitat. The overall trend showed that the species from the same family and genus had the similar traits in terms of food consumption amount and mode of resource utilization than those from different family or genus; the reason of difference was mainly due to the significantly different body sizes regardless the family or genus.
- ants,
- functional traits,
- resource consumption amount,
- mode about resource utilization,
- functional diversity

References

[1]	Cameron T. 2002:the year of the 'diversity-ecosystem function'debate[J]. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002, 17(11):495-496.
[2]	Zhong W H, Cai Z C. Long-term effects of inorganic fertilizers on microbial biomass and community functional diversity in a paddy soil derived from quaternary red clay[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2007, 36(2):84-91.
[3]	Hooper D U, Vitousek P M. Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling[J]. Ecological Monographs, 2008, 68(1):121-149.
[4]	Diaz S, Hodgson J G, Thompson K, et al. The plant traits that drive ecosystems:evidence from three continents[J]. Journal of vegetation science, 2004, 15(3):295-304.
[5]	Tilman D. Functional diversity[J]. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, 2001, 3(1):109-120.
[6]	Luck G W, Harrington R, Harrison P A, et al. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services[J]. Bioscience, 2009, 59(3):223-235.
[7]	Kremen C. Managing ecosystem services:what do we need to know about their ecology?[J]. Ecology Letters, 2005, 8(5):468-479.
[8]	Valerie T. Eviner, F. Stuart Chapin III. Functional Matrix:A Conceptual Framework for Predicting Multiple Plant Effects on Ecosystem Processes[J]. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, 2003, 34(34):455-485.
[9]	Hölldobler B. The ants[M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1990.
[10]	Gómez J M, Valladares F, Puerta C. Differences between structural and functional environmental heterogeneity caused by seed dispersal[J]. Functional Ecology, 2004, 18(6):787-792.
[11]	Philpott S M, Armbrecht I. Biodiversity in tropical agroforests and the ecological role of ants and ant diversity in predatory function[J]. Ecological Entomology, 2006, 31(4):369-377.
[12]	Lobry de Bruyn L A, Conacher A J. The role of termites and ants in soil modification:a review[J]. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 1990, 28(1):55-93.
[13]	Kaspari M, Weiser M D. Ant activity along moisture gradients in a Neotropicalforest[J]. Biotropica, 2000, 32(4a):703-711.
[14]	Gibb H, Stoklosa J, I. Warton D, et al. Does morphology predict trophic position and habitat use of ant species and assemblages[J]. Oecologia, 2014, 177(2):519-531.
[15]	陈又清, 王绍云. 不同寄主植物对云南紫胶虫自然种群的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2007, 18(4):761-765.
[16]	卢志兴, 陈又清, 李巧,等. 云南紫胶虫种群数量对地表蚂蚁多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(19):6195-6202.
[17]	李巧, 陈又清, 郭萧,等. 云南元谋干热河谷不同生境地表蚂蚁多样性[J]. 福建林学院学报, 2007, 27(3):272-277.
[18]	张念念, 陈又清, 卢志兴,等. 云南橡胶林和天然次生林枯落物层蚂蚁物种多样性、群落结构差异及指示种[J]. 昆虫学报, 2013, 56(11):1314-1323.
[19]	吴坚, 王常禄. 中国蚂蚁[M]. 北京:中国林业出版社, 1995.
[20]	徐正会. 西双版纳自然保护区蚁科昆虫生物多样性研究[M]. 昆明:云南科技出版社, 2002.
[21]	Bihn J H, Gebauer G, Brandl R. Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forests[J]. Ecology, 2010, 91(3):782-792.
[22]	Peters R H. The ecological implications of body size[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[23]	Kaspari M, Weiser M D. The size-grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants[J]. Functional Ecology, 1999, 13(4):530-538.
[24]	Sarty M, Abbott K L, Lester P J. Habitat complexity facilitates coexistence in a tropical ant community[J]. Oecologia, 2006, 149(3):465-473.
[25]	Wiescher P T, Pearce-Duvet J M C, Feener D H. Assembling an ant community:species functional traits reflect environmental filtering[J]. Oecologia, 2012, 169(4):1063-1074.
[26]	Gibb H, Parr C L. Does structural complexity determine the morphology of assemblages? An experimental test on three continents[J].PlosOne, 2013, 8(5):e64005.
[27]	Loreau M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:a mechanistic model[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1998,95(10):5632-5636.
[28]	Díaz S, Cabido M. Vive la difference:plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes[J].Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2001, 16(11):646-655.
[29]	Villéger S, Mason N W H, Mouillot D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology[J]. Ecology, 2008,89,2290-2301.

Proportional views

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Article views(2828) PDF downloads(1128) Cited by()

Proportional views

Comparison of Ant's Functional Traits in Resource Utilization

1. Research Institute of Resources Insects, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Kunming 650224, Yunnan, China

Received Date: 2015-04-20

Abstract: In order to reveal the difference of functional traits of ants and study on ant's functional diversity, the functional traits of 17 ant species were measured. The results were as follows: (1) There was difference of functional traits in terms of resource utilization among ant species. Pachycondyla rufipes (Jerdon) was the largest, and Technomyrmex albipes (Smith) was the smallest one in the aspect of food consumption amount. Technomyrmex bicolor Emery and Iridomyrmex anceps (Roger), Camponotus nicobarensis (Mayr) and Pachycondyla zhengi Xu, Gnamptogenys bicolor (Emery) and Aphaenogaster beccarii Emery showed similarity in food consumption amount. (2) In the aspect of mode of resource utilization, Oecophylla smaragdina (Fabricius) has the longest relative legs, but their functions were prior to nesting, the 2 species of Aphaenogaster, 3 species of Camponotus and the Iridomyrmex anceps (Roger) could run fast to acquire resource, the rest 10 ant species had better resource utilization abilities in complex habitat. The overall trend showed that the species from the same family and genus had the similar traits in terms of food consumption amount and mode of resource utilization than those from different family or genus; the reason of difference was mainly due to the significantly different body sizes regardless the family or genus.

HTML

Reference (29)

[1]	Cameron T. 2002:the year of the 'diversity-ecosystem function'debate[J]. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002, 17(11):495-496.
[2]	Zhong W H, Cai Z C. Long-term effects of inorganic fertilizers on microbial biomass and community functional diversity in a paddy soil derived from quaternary red clay[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2007, 36(2):84-91.
[3]	Hooper D U, Vitousek P M. Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling[J]. Ecological Monographs, 2008, 68(1):121-149.
[4]	Diaz S, Hodgson J G, Thompson K, et al. The plant traits that drive ecosystems:evidence from three continents[J]. Journal of vegetation science, 2004, 15(3):295-304.
[5]	Tilman D. Functional diversity[J]. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, 2001, 3(1):109-120.
[6]	Luck G W, Harrington R, Harrison P A, et al. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services[J]. Bioscience, 2009, 59(3):223-235.
[7]	Kremen C. Managing ecosystem services:what do we need to know about their ecology?[J]. Ecology Letters, 2005, 8(5):468-479.
[8]	Valerie T. Eviner, F. Stuart Chapin III. Functional Matrix:A Conceptual Framework for Predicting Multiple Plant Effects on Ecosystem Processes[J]. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, 2003, 34(34):455-485.
[9]	Hölldobler B. The ants[M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1990.
[10]	Gómez J M, Valladares F, Puerta C. Differences between structural and functional environmental heterogeneity caused by seed dispersal[J]. Functional Ecology, 2004, 18(6):787-792.
[11]	Philpott S M, Armbrecht I. Biodiversity in tropical agroforests and the ecological role of ants and ant diversity in predatory function[J]. Ecological Entomology, 2006, 31(4):369-377.
[12]	Lobry de Bruyn L A, Conacher A J. The role of termites and ants in soil modification:a review[J]. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 1990, 28(1):55-93.
[13]	Kaspari M, Weiser M D. Ant activity along moisture gradients in a Neotropicalforest[J]. Biotropica, 2000, 32(4a):703-711.
[14]	Gibb H, Stoklosa J, I. Warton D, et al. Does morphology predict trophic position and habitat use of ant species and assemblages[J]. Oecologia, 2014, 177(2):519-531.
[15]	陈又清, 王绍云. 不同寄主植物对云南紫胶虫自然种群的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2007, 18(4):761-765.
[16]	卢志兴, 陈又清, 李巧,等. 云南紫胶虫种群数量对地表蚂蚁多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(19):6195-6202.
[17]	李巧, 陈又清, 郭萧,等. 云南元谋干热河谷不同生境地表蚂蚁多样性[J]. 福建林学院学报, 2007, 27(3):272-277.
[18]	张念念, 陈又清, 卢志兴,等. 云南橡胶林和天然次生林枯落物层蚂蚁物种多样性、群落结构差异及指示种[J]. 昆虫学报, 2013, 56(11):1314-1323.
[19]	吴坚, 王常禄. 中国蚂蚁[M]. 北京:中国林业出版社, 1995.
[20]	徐正会. 西双版纳自然保护区蚁科昆虫生物多样性研究[M]. 昆明:云南科技出版社, 2002.
[21]	Bihn J H, Gebauer G, Brandl R. Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forests[J]. Ecology, 2010, 91(3):782-792.
[22]	Peters R H. The ecological implications of body size[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[23]	Kaspari M, Weiser M D. The size-grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants[J]. Functional Ecology, 1999, 13(4):530-538.
[24]	Sarty M, Abbott K L, Lester P J. Habitat complexity facilitates coexistence in a tropical ant community[J]. Oecologia, 2006, 149(3):465-473.
[25]	Wiescher P T, Pearce-Duvet J M C, Feener D H. Assembling an ant community:species functional traits reflect environmental filtering[J]. Oecologia, 2012, 169(4):1063-1074.
[26]	Gibb H, Parr C L. Does structural complexity determine the morphology of assemblages? An experimental test on three continents[J].PlosOne, 2013, 8(5):e64005.
[27]	Loreau M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:a mechanistic model[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1998,95(10):5632-5636.
[28]	Díaz S, Cabido M. Vive la difference:plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes[J].Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2001, 16(11):646-655.
[29]	Villéger S, Mason N W H, Mouillot D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology[J]. Ecology, 2008,89,2290-2301.

Comparison of Ant's Functional Traits in Resource Utilization

Abstract

References

Proportional views

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Proportional views

Comparison of Ant's Functional Traits in Resource Utilization

HTML

Catalog

Export File

Citation

Format

Content