A comparison of ants in Australia and southern Africa, part 2

Here is more particular information from the study areas.

Mallee-heath, Mid Mount Barren, Fitzgerald River National Park, April 1982
In decreasing order of abundance:
Pheidole JDM 399 (186), Tapinoma JDM 134 (29), Camponotus JDM 199 (24), Meranoplus sp. 12 ANIC (21), Monomorium sp. 2 ANIC (9), Camponotus JDM 26 (6), Meranoplus sp. 11 ANIC (3), Rhytidoponera inornata (2), Tetramorium sp. 5 ANIC (1), Iridomyrmex conifer (1), Camponotus JDM 223 (1).

Nutrient-poor site at Fitzgerald River National Park:
Myrmecia sp. JDM 586
Myrmecia chasei
Camponotus sp. JDM 26
Camponotus sp. JDM 68
Camponotus sp. JDM 223
Camponotus sp. JDM 199
Notostigma sanguine
Polyrachis sp. JDM 118
Polyrachis sp. JDM 529
Notoncus hickmani

Mallee on calcareous dune, just east of Fitzgerald River National Park, summer, in decreasing order of number of individuals pitfall-trapped:
Monomorium sp. 2 ANIC (344 individuals)
Iridomyrmex conifer (99)
Meranoplus sp. 11 ANIC (68)
Iridomyrmex sp. 21 ANIC (19)
Rhytidoponera ignorant (10)
Iridomyrmex sp. JDM 550 (5)
Pachycondyla (Brachyponera) lutea (4)
Ochetellus glaber (4)
Polyrachis sp. JDM 529 (3)
Camponotus sp. JDM 199 (1)

Hopetoun, just east of Fitzgerald River National Park: ant genera in decreasing order of number of individuals pitfall-trapped:
Meranoplus (142 individuals)
Iridomyrmex (110)
Camponotus (109)
Monomorium (55)
Rhytidoponera (26)
Pheidole (21)

Hopetoun, in decreasing order of number of individuals pitfall-trapped (parentheses show summer vs winter):
Iridomyrmex conifer 177 (106 vs 71)
Camponotus sp. JDM 199 151 (106 vs 45)
Pheidole sp. JDM 399 113 (21 vs 92)
Meranoplus sp. 12 ANIC 113 (113 vs 0)
Monomorium sp. 2 ANIC 55 (55 vs 0)
Tapinoma sp. JDM 134 44 (4 vs 40)
Prolasius sp. JDM 551 33 (0 vs 33)
Meranoplus sp. 11 ANIC 29 (29 vs 0)
Rhytidoponera inornata 26 (25 vs 1)
Crematogaster sp. JDM 120 12 (7 vs 5)
Meranoplus rugosa 8 (0 vs 8)
Chelaner? 7 (7 vs 0)
Camponotus sp. JDM 223 5 (3 vs 2)
Stigmacros 375 5 (2 vs 3)
Iridomyrmex sp. 21 ANIC 4 (4 vs 0)
Tetramorium sp. 5 ANIC 3 (3 vs 0)
Trachymesopus 'rufonigra' 2 (2 vs 0)
Brachyponera lutea 2 (2 vs 0)
Iridomyrmex sp. 19 ANIC 2 (0 vs 2)
Chelaner? 2 (2 vs 0)
Melophorus sp. JDM 28 1 (1 vs 0)
Adlerzia froggatti 1 (1 vs 0)
?Melophorus sp. 1 (1 vs 0)
Rhytidoponera sp. JDM 67 1 (1 vs 0)
Cerapachys sp. JDM 203 1 (1 vs 0)
Polyrachis sp. JDM 529 1 (1 vs 0)
Myrmecia chasei 1 (1 vs 0)
Myrmecia sp. JDM 528 1 (1 vs 0)
Melophorus sp. JDM 530 1 (1 vs 0)
Crematogaster sp. 'b' ANIC 1 (0 vs 1)


Protea compacta fynbos, Springfield Farm, Soetanysberg (now part of Agulhas National Park), March 1981:

  • In early autumn, the most abundant species of ants were Anoplolepis steingroeveri (35% of total pitfall-trapped), Camponotus mystaceus (15%), and Crematogaster peringueyi (10%). These three species together account for 60% of the total of 249 individuals trapped.
  • Species of Camponotus alone accounted for over a third of the ant species trapped, and 27% of the individuals. Tetramorium spp. accounted for 12% of individuals.
  • The ant community was thus dominated by Formicinae, followed by Myrmicinae. Dolichoderinae and Ponerinae were the only other subfamilies represented.
  • In the same study site in spring, the main species pitfall-trapped was Crematogaster peringueyi, with small numbers of other species (mainly non-indigenous Technomyrmex albipes) including one or two not previously trapped here. Anoplolepis was not trapped in this season, and all species of Camponotus were represented only two individuals.
  • Based on the number of individuals caught, the decreasing order of abundance in early autumn was:
    Anoplolepis steingroeveri (87), Camponotus mystaceus (37), Crematogaster peringueyi (25), Technomyrmex albipes (18), Tetramorium frigidum (17), Camponotus niveosetosus (14), Tetramorium sp. (12), Bothroponera strigulosa (9), Camponotus angusticeps (8), Lepisiota capensis (7), Camponotus sp. (5?), Oxymyrmex barbiger (4), Camponotus dicksoni (3), Tetramorium quadrispinosum (2), and Camponotus maculatus (1).

Publicado el marzo 20, 2022 08:03 MAÑANA por milewski milewski

Comentarios

Edmonds and Specht (1981, https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201301318536) recorded the following:

Dolichoderinae

Froggattella kirbii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froggattella_kirbii, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/781654-Froggattella-kirbii)
Doleromyrma darwiniana (https://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Doleromyrma and https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/408587-Doleromyrma-darwiniana)
Iridomyrmex purpureus viridiaenus
Iridomyrmex spp.

Formicinae

Camponotus 2 spp.
Notoncus hickmani (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1075222-Notoncus-hickmani)

Myrmeciinae

Myrmecia nigriscapa (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/483563-Myrmecia-nigriscapa)

Myrmicinae

Crematogaster sp.
Meranoplus sp.

Ponerinae

Rhytidoponera spp.

Based on sweep-samples (tending to catch those ants seeking nectar on shrubs), the activity pattern here was:

inactivity in winter, an abrupt transition to activity in Aug.-Sept., maximum activity in late spring, inactivity in the hottest months, and an abrupt transition to inactivity in April-May.

Publicado por milewski hace más de 2 años

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.