4.6 Article

Army ants in four forests: geographic variation in raid rates and species composition

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY
卷 76, 期 3, 页码 580-589

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01221.x

关键词

ambient temperature; diel patterns; dominant species; Ecitoninae; foraging; species richness; top predator

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. The New World army ants are top predators in the litter of tropical forest, but no comprehensive studies exist on variation in assemblage-wide activity and species composition. We used standardized protocols to estimate foraging raid rates and species composition of army ant communities in four Neotropical forests. The study sites spanned approximately 10 degrees latitude, with two sites each in Central and South America. 2. We recorded a total of 22 species of army ants. The four sites varied in observed and estimated species richness. Species overlap was highest between the Central American sites, and lowest between the South American sites. 3. Raid activity varied significantly among sites. Raid activity per kilometre of trail walks was over four times higher at the most active site (Sta. Maria, Venezuela) than at the least active site (Barro Colorado Island, Panama). Furthermore, each site showed a different diel pattern of activity. For example, raid activity was higher during daylight hours in Costa Rica, and higher at night in Venezuela. Raid activity relationships with ambient temperature also varied significantly among sites. 4. The overall rate of army ant raids passing through 1 m(2) plots was 0.73 raids per day, but varied among sites, from 0 raids per day (Panama) to 1.2 raids per day (Venezuela). 5. Primarily subterranean species were significantly more abundant in Venezuela, and above-ground foragers that form large swarm fronts were least abundant in Panama. The site heterogeneity in species abundance and diel activity patterns has implications for army ant symbionts, including ant-following birds, and for the animals hunted by these top predators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据