Abstract:

The report analyses the ant community difference of five landscapes in the Calperum camp:

Levee, Sandy hill, Riverine dune, Chenopod and Claypan. Three research questions on the

ant abundance, diversity and the influence of sunlight on the responsiveness of the ants

towards the food bait are evaluated. The pitfall trap method is used to collect the subjects in

these five sites. The study found that the variation in the number of ants within the five

regions provide evidence that the abundance of ants is highly influenced by the site locations.

In addition, the study revealed that sunlight has an adverse effect on the ants’ responding time

towards the bait. Due to ant diversity caused by the different site locations. The study

proposed that future research should increase the population of samples coupled with the

consideration of additional variable factors.

Introduction:

The existence of ants in the ecological system has a positive influence in the process of soil

turbation (Archard & Braithwaite 2010). The environmental factors (weather, humidity,

temperature, soil pH), species abundance, food richness and interaction with other animal

species have been shown to have a significant effect on the behaviour of ants (Pinter-

Wollman, Gordon & Holmes, 2012). The aridity index of the location also impacts on the

foraging behaviour of the ants. Azcarate (2007) point out that most ant species are well suited

to the semi-arid regions of the southern Australia due to the favorable weather conditions in

the stated locations. However, certain unique personality factors and different ability

responding to environment. (Brown & Gordon 2000).

The ecological study of Gordon (2011) found that the existence of environmental factors such

as sunlight negatively on ant colonies within a given location. The main explanation was that

sunlight increases the soil temperature, which consequently create disturbance conditions that

restrict the movement of the ants. Based on these findings, the abundance of ants within a

colony varies depending on the nature of the site. Furthermore, the study of Dingemanse, et

al. (2010) also found that the abundance of ant species had a substantial effect in influencing

the responsiveness and speed of food retrieval at a given site. The study is to investigate the

behaviour of ants in the Calperum camp. The study seeks to establish the behaviour of ants

(abundance and speed of responsiveness to food) based on the site location, diversity and

environmental factors. The implication at the study will examine whether the site

characteristics, the diversity of ant species and the environmental factors influence the

behaviour of ants in the colony. The report hypothesized that due to the variations in the

environmental and humidity factors has a substantial influence on the abundance, sunlight

and diversity of the ant species. Additionally, the study aimed at answering the research

questions as follow.

1. Do different landscapes influence the diversity and abundance of ant’s community?

2. Does the wet place have a higher abundance of ant’s community?

3. Is there any relationship between the vegetation variable and ant habitat?

Method

Ants observation

The reaction time of ants on removing food was observed and recorded by using a volumetric

flask placed with 50ml honey and tuna mixture liquid. The bait was placed at two

independent locations outside of the sampling quadrat. Surrounding is also observed, such as

the presence of sunlight and surrounding number of ants, the behaviours of the ants were

analysed with exposure to the sunlight and minimal exposure to sunlight. On the other hand,

the speed of ants’ response to the baits was examined with respect to the density of the

insects within 1 meter of the trap. Three conditions were taken into consideration; zero ants

within 1 meter of the site, less than 10 ants within 1 meter of the site location and greater than

10 ants exist within 1 meter of the trap site. The number of ants within 5 cm of the bait was

recorded per 2 minutes. Time for the bait taken by ants is also recorded when ants first to

reach the bait to analyse their foraging behaviour.

Pit fall trap

The study relies on the pitfall trap method, which is the most common ecological sampling

technique is used in seasonal incidences to collect insects and animal species (Animal Ethics

2019). The pitfall trap method entails sinking a glass, plastic or metallic container in a deep

underground hole near the site of the insects or animals with the lid of the stated containers

being in the same level as the surface of the soil (Melo 2004). The traps are a small container

filled with honey at the bottom were placed on five pits fall traps (per sampling quadrat),

which attract the ants to the containers and cannot escape once inside because of the

stickiness of the fluids. The traps were left overnight such that in the morning, all the insects

stuck are collected, examined for species and counted. (The sites are made sure to have as

little disturbance as possible.)

The traps are placed in five strategic sites within the Calperum camp. These locations, which

are distinguished by the type of soil and humidity include the Sand dune, Chenopod,

Claypan, Riverine dune and Levee (see figure 1).

Figure 1: The Location of the Trap Sites at the Calperum Camp

Refer to figure 1 shows that the ant traps were strategically placed in opposite direction (Sand

dune and Chenopod) and (Claypan, Levee and Riverine dune) to ensure sufficient coverage at

the site. In addition, as depicted in figure 1, the spacing of the sites is meant to ensure that

there is minimal overlapping on the outcome of the study findings due to the traps being close

to each other. The ant species classification is used to measure the diversity of the insects in

each of the five sites.

Results

Based on the data we obtained, we summary the species richness and effective number of

species in figure 2. As can be seen, figure 2 illustrates the relationship between species

richness and effective number of species in those five landscapes. It concludes that the river

levee has the most species richness, followed by chenopod and sandy hills. Interestingly,

river levee also takes the first place in terms of the effective numbers of species, followed by

sandy hills and then chenopod shrublands. This result agrees with the theory that the larger

total number of individuals in areas indicate higher species abundance. Since river levee has

the highest number on both specie richness and effective number of species, it suggests that

the environmental characteristics and vegetation variables of river levee could be more

appropriate for ants than others.

Figure 2: Ant richness versus effective numbers of species in landscapes

In order to study the species diversity of ants in different landscapes, the local

diversity(alpha), beta diversity(beta) and regional diversity(gamma) are calculated. The

comparison of them are described as figure 3. It shows that river levee has the largest local

diversity; riverine dune has the highest beta diversity among the five landscapes; and river

levee obtain the highest gamma diversity. Similarly, clay pan is found with the least alpha

and gamma diversity.

Figure 3: Ant species diversity parameter comparison

.

Figure 4 Total Ants Abundance in the Five SitesFrom figure 4, the total number of ants in each of the five site locations in the Calperum

camp was summarised. A total of 210 ants were discovered in the river levee and the sandy

hill. The data presented in figure 4 shows that the clay pan site had the lowest number of ants

(41) and the Riverine dune recorded the second lowest number of ants with 51 ants.

Leeve RivDe ClayP SandH ChenS0

50

100

150

200

250

210

5141

210

85

Series1

In addition, the Sorensen dissimilarities of each landscape is illustrated in figure 5 for

discussing the contribution of different ant species in each site. The Sorensen dissimilarities

line of River Levee suggests the F. Iridomyrmex contributes to the most ant population in the

site. And the ant species contribution difference is the least among the five landscapes. Sandy

hill, however, has the largest species contribution difference. The species difference of clay

pan is not significant due to lack of sufficient data.

Figure 5 Sorensen dissimilarities of each landscape

On the other hand, the soil properties such as ground cover variables, vegetation structure

variables and herbivore indices of these five landscapes are illustrated in figure 6, figure 7

and figure 8, individually. As can be seen, Clay Pan has the barest ground cover rate,

compared with River levee which has the least bare ground cover. Chenopod has the most

plant/lichen cover rates, followed by River Levee and Sandy hill. River Levee has the most

litter cover rate, followed by Chenopod and Sandy Hill.

In terms of the vegetation structure showed in figure 7, the number of vegetation is found

negatively corelated to the depth of soil. The number of vegetation underneath 1cm of the

ground in Chenopod, Clay Pan and Riverine are significantly lower than the number of

vegetation above 0.5 cm of the ground.

Besides, the herbivore indices described in figure 8 indicates that River Levee has the largest

total accumulation of herbivore indices. Kangaroo scats contribute to the most of total indices

in all the five landscapes, while the contribution of rabbit scats and goat scats are not

significant.

Figure 6 Ground cover variables of landscapes

Figure 7 Vegetation structure variables of landscapes

Figure 8 Herbivore indices of landscapes

Figure 8: Effective Number of Species for Each Order of DiversityBased on figure 8, which also confirms that the Sandy hill and the Levee sites are the most

diversified with the highest effective number of species for order of diversity less than 0.5.

Furthermore, the results presented in figure 8 also indicate that for all order of diversity, the

Claypan and the Riverine dune exhibit the least effective number of ant species.

Discussion

This study indicates that the population of ants are various among different ant species

(Philpott, Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2006). Our study finds that the Camponotus ants

location has the most abundance in the five sites of Calperum camp, which agrees the

findings of Wilkie, Mertl and Traniello (2010). They note that the most common species-rich

genera of the ants in most Australia camp sites is the Camponotus major. This study also

finds that the C.Ephippium and the F.Rhytidoponera are the most common ant species in the

Sandy hill landscape. According to the effective number and species abundance, the

Camponotus and the Greensladei are the abundant ant species in River Levee site. While, it

shows that the Iridomyrmex agilis is the only abundant ant species in the Riverine Dune site.

These findings regarding the species abundance in different landscapes reveal that the

environmental factors in landscapes could affect the ant communities.

According to the results of figure 4 and figure 5, we discover that the River Levee and Sandy

Hill site own the largest total individual number 210 and the highest species diversity. This

might attribute to that these sites provide more appropriate environment for vegetation

growth, then increase the availability of food resource for ants. River Levee and Sandy Hill

both offer suitable environment factors such as higher soil water content, microorganism

activities and nutrient transportation (Tecon & Or 2017). More plants assure the effectiveness

of ants foraging and increase the potential of larger ant species abundance in River Levee and

Sandy Hill.

Gibson (1990) reports that the major food for ants are sugary residues, seeds and fungus. The

total food availability of these resources in River Levee and Sandy Hill are significantly

richer than other landscapes during spring and summer season (Buckley 1982). More food

availability could contribute to higher ant species abundance, because the increase of

foraging effectiveness lowers the risk of population loss due to food shortage and their

predator. Thus, the effect of food availability for ants are considered as a factor influencing

the ant abundance.

Besides, the vegetation structure could also affect the diversity of ants. We find that the River

Levee site has the lowest bare ground cover rate and the highest litter cover rate, this soil

structure properties could benefit the establishment of ant colony and habitat. The larger

vegetation cover rate and more fragmentation rate of the soil increase the abundance of ant

species (Golden & Crist 2000; Marques & Del-Claro 2006). This attributes to the more

vegetation covered and more fragmented soil provides more diversity in terms of habitat

structure and positions, which could attract richer ant species to nest and forge since forging

and nesting of different ant species could vary (Wittman et al. 2010).

Based on these findings, the site location of the ants has a significant influence on the

abundance of the ants. The potential reasons of the finding are the environmental factors

including soil pH, temperature, and humidity. Magurran (2004), also mentioned that the

environmental play an important role in establishing the suitability of the sites as a natural

habitat for the ant colonies. Therefore, environmental and physical adaptation factors explain

why ant abundance is influenced by the ant distribution and abundance.

Conclusion

The main aim of the report is to investigate the foraging behavioural attributes of the ant

species across the five sites (Levee, Sandy hill, Riverine dune, Chenopod and Claypan) which

are found in the Calperum camp, south Australia. The study seeks to provide solutions to

three research questions on related to the ant abundance, the diversity of ants and the effect of

sunlight on the responsiveness of the ants towards the food bait. The study found that the

Camponotus is the most abundant ant species across the five sites while the Levee had the

highest number of ant species in the camp. The significant variation in the number of ants

across the five regions provides evidence that the abundance of ants is substantially affected

by the site locations. The study also concludes and acknowledges that sunlight has an adverse

effect on the ants’ response time towards the bait. The findings were established in four of the

five locations with the Levee site presenting anomalous results. The study also found that the

ant diversity (richness) is strongly influenced by the nature of the site location given that the

Levee and the Sandy hill recorded the highest effective number of species compared to the

other sites. Therefore, all the three-research hypothesis were confirmed based on the findings

of the current study.

However, the reliability of the study findings is likely to be hampered by the limitations

related to the sampling and the variables of interest. The conclusions and inferences are based

on the ant foraging behaviours in only a limited number of sites (5 regions). The report

suggests that in order to enhance the reliability of study, future research should conduct the

investigation on a large sample of sites. The inclusion of a greater number of variables such

as the genetic attributes, physiological constraints and the interaction with other insects is

also expected to improve the reliability and validity of the future research.

References:

Animal Ethics 2019 Use of pitfall traps [online]. Available from:< https://www.animalethics.org.au>[Accessed on 7th June 2019].

Archard, GA & Braithwaite, VA 2010, ‘The importance of world population in studies of animal temperament’, Journal of Zoology, vol. 281, no. 1, pp. 149-160.

Andersen, A.N., 1986. Diversity, seasonality and community organization of ants at adjacent heath and woodland sites in southeastern Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology, 34(1), pp.53-64.

Azcarate, FM 2007, ‘Microclimatic conditions regulate surface activity in harvester

ants Messor barbarus’, Journal of Insects Behavior, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 315-329.

Brown, MJF & Gordon, DM 2000, ‘How resources and encounters affect the distribution of

foraging activity in a seed harvesting ant’, Behavior and Ecological Sociobiology, vol. 47, no.

1, pp. 195-203.

Buckley, RC 1982, Ant-plant interactions in Australia, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.

Dingemanse, et al. 2010, ‘Behavioral reaction norms: animal personality meets individual

plasticity’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 81-89.

Golden, D.M. and Crist, T.O., 2000. Experimental effects of habitat fragmentation on rove beetles and ants: patch area or edge? Oikos, 90(3), pp.525-538.

Gordon, DM 2011, ‘The fusion of behavioral ecology and ecology’, Behavioral

Ecology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 225-230.

Jandt, JM & Dornhaus, A 2009, ‘Spatial organization and division of labour in the

bumblebee’, Animal Behavior, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 641-651.

Keylock, C J 2005, ‘Simpson diversity and the Shannon–Wiener index as special cases of a

generalized entropy’, Oikos, vol. 109, no. 1, pp.203-207.

Magurran, AE 2004, Measuring biological diversity, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Melo, AS 2004, ‘A critique of the use of jackknife and related non-parametric techniques to

estimate species richness’, Community Ecology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 149-157.

Marques, G.D.V. and Del-Claro, K., 2006. The ant fauna in a Cerrado area: the influence of vegetation structure and seasonality (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology, 47(1), pp.235-252.

Parr, CL & Chown, SL 2001, ‘Inventory and bio-indicator sampling: testing pitfall and

Winkler methods with ants in a South African savanna’, Journal of Insect Conservation, vol.

5, no. 1, pp.27-36.

Pinter-Wollman, N, Gordon, DM & Holmes, S 2012, ‘Nest site and weather affect the

personality of harvester ant colonies’, Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1022-1029.

Wilkie, KTR, Mertl, AL & Traniello, JFA 2010, ‘Species diversity and distribution patterns

of the ants of Amazonian Ecuador’, PLOS One, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 1-10.

Philpott, S., Perfecto, I. and Vandermeer, J. (2006). Effects of Management Intensity and

Season on Arboreal Ant Diversity and Abundance in Coffee Agroecosystems. Biodiversity

and Conservation, vol.15, no.1, pp.139-155.

Tecon, R. and Or, D., 2017. Biophysical processes supporting the diversity of microbial life

in soil. FEMS microbiology reviews, 41(5), pp.599-623.

Wittman, S.E., Sanders, N.J., Ellison, A.M., Jules, E.S., Ratchford, J.S. and Gotelli, N.J., 2010. Species interactions and thermal constraints on ant community structure. Oikos, 119(3), pp.551-559.