Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: a comparison with Australia

Andersen, Alan·1997·Journal of Biogeography

Abstract

Ant distribution and behavioural dominance is examined at nine sites along an elevational gradient (1400–2600 m) in south eastern Arizona, in order to classify North American species according to a functional group scheme used extensively in Australia. The functional groups are then used as a basis for determining patterns of community structure along the environmental gradient, and for comparing community structure between Australia and North America. Quantitative information on species com‐ position was obtained from pitfall traps, and patterns of ant abundance at tuna baits were used to determine relative behavioural dominance among taxa. A total of eighty‐three species from twenty‐eight genera was recorded along the elevational gradient, with site species richness ranging from four (high elevation Douglas fir forest) to thirty‐three (mid elevation oak–juniper woodland). There was a strong correlation between ant abundance and richness, which was not an artefact of sampling intensity. The most common ants were species of Forelius, Monomorium, Crematogaster and Pheidole at the three desert sites, species of Formica, Pheidole and Crematogaster at the three woodland sites, and species of Prenolepis and Formica at one forest site. No species were abundant at two other forest sites. The most common species in traps also tended to be the most common species at baits. In terms of behavioural dominance, highly competitive ants included species of Solenopsis, Forelius, Monomorium and Liometopum. Species of Pheidole and Crematogaster tended to be moderately competitive, whereas species of Dory‐ myrmex, Myrmica, Camponotus and Formica (fusca gp) had low competitive ability. On the basis of these results and on published records of other taxa, North American ants were assigned to functional groups as follows (major taxa only given here): Dominant Dolichoderinae—Forelius, Liome‐ topum; Subordinate Camponotini—Camponotus; Hot Climate Specialists—Pogonomyrmex, Myrmecocystus; Cold Climate Specialists—Formica (rufa, exsecta and microgyna groups), Leptothorax, Stenamma, Lasius, Prenolepis; Cryptic Species—Smithistruma, Solenopsis (subgenus Diplorhop‐ trum), Acanthomyops; Opportunists—Formica (fusca group), Myrmica, Paratrechina, Dorymyrmex; Generalized Myr‐ micinae—Pheidole, Crematogaster, Monomorium; Specialist Predators—no major taxa. Functional group composition varied systematically along the elevation gradient: Dominant Dolichoderinae, Generalized MyrÍmicinae and Hot Climate Specialists were predominant at desert sites; Generalized Myrmicinae and Opportunists were predominant at woodland sites; and Opportunists and Cold Climate Specialists were predominant at forest sites. These patterns are consistent with published studies from elsewhere in North America. Almost all North American taxa can be matched with what appear to be ecologically equivalent taxa in Australia, and biogeographic patterns of functional group composition are broadly similar across the two continents. The major differences are that Australian ant communities are far richer in species, and are almost always dominated by dolichoderines, particularly species of Iridomyrmex. Generalized myrmicines are subdominant to dolichoderines in Australia, but are the behaviourally dominant ants throughout the warmer parts of North America. In cool‐temperate North America, species of Formica (especially rufa and exsecta groups) are behaviourally dominant, as they are throughout the Palearctic. Some major features of the North American fauna can be linked to its poor representation of Dominant Dolichoderinae, including (1) the relatively low degree of physiological, morphological and behavioural specialization of Hot Climate Specialists; (2) behavioural dominance by formicines in cool‐temperate habitats; and (3) the susceptibility to invasion by behaviourally dominant species such as the imported fire ant Solenopsis invicta and the Argentine ant Linepithema humile.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2699.1997.00137.x

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
Andersen, A.
Venue
Journal of Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-07
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
433-460
ISSN
  • 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2699
OpenAlex
W2014750767
Cited by
379
References
31
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: a comparison with Australia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2699.1997.00137.x
The paper
Andersen, A. (1997). Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: a comparison with Australia. Journal of Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.1997.00137.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.