Ecology and field biology of two dominant Camponotus ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Brazilian savannah

References

• AntWeb. 2017. San Francisco: California academy of sciences. [accessed 2017 Feb 4]. https://www.antweb.org/description.do?subfamily=formicinae&genus=camponotus&rank=genus.
   Google Scholar
• Blüthgen N, Feldhaar H. 2010. Food and shelter: how resources influence ant ecology. In: Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL, editors. Ant ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 115–136.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton B. 1994. Identification guide to the ant genera of the world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Breed M, Abel P, Bleuze TJ, Denton SE. 1990. Thievery, home ranges, and nestmate recognition in Ectatomma ruidum. Oecologia. 87:117–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown WL. 2000. Diversity of ants. In: Agosti D, Majer J, Alonso E, Schultz TR, editors. Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 45–79.
   Google Scholar
• Caldato N, Forti LC, Bouchebti S, Lopes JFS, Fourcassié V. 2016. Foraging activity pattern and herbivory rates of the grass-cutting ant Atta capiguara. Insect Soc. 63:421–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calenge C. 2006. The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model. 197:516–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camargo RX, Oliveira PS. 2012. Natural history of the Neotropical arboreal ant, Odontomachus hastatus: nest sites, foraging schedule, and diet. J Insect Sci. 12:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll CR, Janzen DH. 1973. Ecology of foraging by ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 4:231–257.
   Google Scholar
• Cerdá X, Retana J, Cros S. 1998. Critical thermal limits in Mediterranean ant species: trade-off between mortality risk and foraging performance. Funct Ecol. 12:45–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianini AV, Mayhé-Nunes AJ, Oliveira PS. 2007. The role of ants in the removal of non-myrmecochorous diaspores and seed germination in a Neotropical savanna. J Trop Ecol. 23:343–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cogni R, Oliveira PS. 2004. Patterns in foraging and nesting ecology in the neotropical ant, Gnamptogenys moelleri (Formicidae, Ponerinae). Insect Soc. 51:123–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debout G, Schatz B, Elias M, McKey D. 2007. Polydomy in ants: what we know, what we think we know, and what remains to be done. Biol J Linn Soc. 90:319–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del-Claro K, Oliveira PS. 1999. Ant-Homoptera interactions in a Neotropical Savanna: the honeydew producing treehopperm Guayaquila xiphias (Membracidae), and its associated ant fauna on Didymopanax vinosum (Araliaceae). Biotropica. 31:135–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis S, Procter DS, Buckham-Bonnett P, Robinson EJH. 2017. Infering polydomy: a review of functional, spatial and genetic methods for identifying colony boundaries. Insect Soc. 64:19–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fourcassié V, Oliveira PS. 2002. Foraging ecology of the giant Amazonian ant Dinoponera gigantea (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Ponerinae): activity schedule, and spatial foraging patterns. J Nat His. 36:2211–2227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frizzo TLM, Campos RI, Vasconcelos HL. 2012. Contrasting effects of fire on arboreal and ground-dwelling ant communities of a Neotropical Savanna. Biotropica. 44:254–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon DM. 1995. The development of an ant colony’s foraging range. Anim Behav. 49:649–659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashmi AA. 1973. A revision of the Neotropical ant subgenus Myrmothrix of genus Camponotus. Studia Entomologica. 16:1–140.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich B. 1993. The hot-blooded insects. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hölldobler B. 1971. Recruitment behavior in Camponotus socius (Hym. Formicidae). Z Vergl Physiol. 75:123–142.
   Google Scholar
• Hölldobler B. 1987. Communication and competition in ant communities. In: Kawano S, Connell JH, Hidaka T, editors. Evolution and coadaptation in biotic communities. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press; p. 98–124.
   Google Scholar
• Hölldobler B, Möglich M. 1980. The foraging system of Pheidole militicida (Hymenoptera: formicidae). Insect Soc. 27:237–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hölldobler B, Wilson EO. 1990. The Ants. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holway DA, Case TJ. 2000. Mechanisms of dispersed central-place foraging in polydomous colonies of the Argentine ant. Anim Behav. 59:433–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2004. Map of Brazilian biomes. [accessed 2017 Jul 10]. http://mapas.ibge.gov.br/tematicos.html.
   Google Scholar
• Kaminski LA, Freitas AVL, Oliveira PS. 2010. Interaction between mutualisms: ant-tended butterflies exploit enemy-free space provided by ant-treehopper associations. Am Nat. 176:322–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levings SC. 1983. Seasonal, annual, and among-site variation in the ground ant community of a deciduous tropical forest: some causes of patchy species distributions. Ecol Monogr. 53:435–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liefke C, Dorow WHO, Hölldobler B, Maschwitz U. 1998. Nesting and food resources of syntopic species of the ant genus Polyrhachis (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in West-Malaysia. Insect Soc. 45:411–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGlynn TP, Shotell MD, Kelly MS. 2003. Responding to a variable environment: home range, foraging behavior, and nest relocation in the Costa Rican Rainforest ant Aphaenogaster araneoides. J Insect Behav. 16:687–701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros FNS, Oliveira PS. 2009. Season-dependent foraging patterns: case study of a Neotropical forest-dwelling ant (Pachycondyla striata; Ponerinae). In: Jarau S, Hrncir M, editors. Food exploitation by social insects: ecological behavioral, and theoretical approaches. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group; p. 81–95.
   Google Scholar
• Mody K, Lisenmair E. 2004. Plant-attracted ants affect arthropod community structure but not necessarily herbivory. Ecol Entomol. 29:217–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morais HC, Benson WW. 1988. Recolonização de vegetação de Cerrado após queimada por formigas arborícolas. Rev Bras Biol. 48:459–466.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira PS. 1997. The ecological function of extrafloral nectaries: herbivore deterrence by visiting ants and reproductive output in Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae). Funct Ecol. 11:323–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira PS, Brandão CRF. 1991. The ant community associated with extrafloral nectaries in the Brazilian Cerrados. In: Cutler DF, Huxley CR, editors. Ant-plant interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 198–212.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira PS, Del-Claro K. 2005. Multitrophic interactions in a neotropical savanna: ant-hemipteran systems, associated insect herbivores, and a host plant. In: Burslem DFRP, Pinard MA, Hartley SE, editors. Biotic Interactions in the Tropics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 414–438.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira PS, Freitas AVL. 2004. Ant-plant-herbivore interactions in the neotropical cerrado savanna. Naturwissenschaften. 91:557–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira PS, Rico-Gray V, Díaz-Castelazo C, Castillo-Guevara C. 1999. Interaction between ants, extrafloral nectaries and insect herbivores in Neotropical coastal sand dunes: herbivore deterrence by visiting ants increases fruit set in Opuntia stricta (Cactaceae). Funct Ecol. 13:623–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira-Filho AT, Ratter JA. 2002. Vegetation physiognomies and the woody flora of the Cerrado biome. In: Oliveira PS, Marquis RJ, editors. The Cerrados of Brazil: ecology and natural history of a neotropical savanna. New York: Columbia University Press; p. 91–120.
   Google Scholar
• Orr AG, Charles JK. 2007. Foraging in the giant forest ant, Camponotus gigas (Smith) (Hymenoptera: formicidae): evidence for temporal and spatial specialization in foraging activity. J Nat His. 28:861–872.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer M, Lisenmair KE. 2000. Contributions to the life history of the Malaysian giant ant Camponotus gigas (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insect Soc. 47:123–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter SD, Tschinkel WR. 1993. Fire ant termal preferences: behavioral control of growth and metabolism. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 32:321–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [accessed 2016 Sep 12]. http://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Raimundo RLG, Freitas AVL, Oliveira PS. 2009. Seasonal patterns in activity rhythm and foraging ecology in the Neotropical forest-dwelling ant, Odontomachus chelifer (Formicidae: ponerinae). Ann Entomol Soc Am. 102:1151–1157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronque MUV, Azevedo-Silva M, Mori GM, Souza AP, Oliveira PS. 2016. Three ways to distinguish species: using behavioural, ecological, and molecular data to tell apart two closely related ants, Camponotus renggeri and Camponotus rufipes (Hymenoptera: formicidae). Zool J Linn Soc. 176:170–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosengren R. 1977. Foraging strategy of wood ants (Formica rufa group), I: age polyethism and topographic traditions. Acta Zool Fennica. 149:1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Santos JC, Del-Claro K. 2009. Ecology and behaviour of the weaver ant Camponotus (Myrmobrachys) senex. J Nat His. 43:1423–1435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoereder JH, Sobrinho TG, Madureira MS, Ribas CR, Oliveira PS. 2010. The arboreal ant community visiting extrafloral nectaries in the Neotropical Cerrado savanna. Terr Arthropod Rev. 3:3–27.
   Google Scholar
• Sendoya SF, Freitas AVL, Oliveira PS. 2009. Egg-laying butterflies distinguish predaceous ants by sight. Am Nat. 174:134–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvestre R, Brandão CRF, Da Silva RR. 2003. Gupo funcionales de hormigas: el caso de los grêmios del Cerrado. In: Fernández F, editor. Introducción a las hormigas de La región Neotropical. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt; p. 113–148.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner FM, Crozier RH, Schlick-Steiner BC. 2010. Colony Strcture. In: Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL, editors. Ant ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 177–193.
   Google Scholar
• Talbot M. 1943. Population studies of the ant, Prenolepis imparis Say. Ecology. 24:31–44.
   Google Scholar
• Traniello JFA. 1977. Recruitment behavior, orientation, and the organization of foraging in the carpenter ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus DeGeer (Hymenoptera: formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2:61–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschinkel WR. 2005. The nest architecture of the ant, Camponotus socius. J Insect Sci. 5:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidenmüller A, Mayr C, Kleineidam CJ, Roces F. 2009. Preimaginal and adult experience modulates the thermal response behavior of ants. Curr Biol. 19:1897–1902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson EO. 1959. Some ecological characteristics of ants in New Guinea rain forests. Ecology. 40:437–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto M, Del-Claro K. 2008. Natural history and foraging behavior of the carpenter ant Camponotus sericeiventris Guérin, 1838 (Formicinae, Campotonini) in the Brazilian tropical savanna. Acta Ethol. 11:55–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar