1. The Abisko Ant (Formica exsecta ) Can the presence and abundancy of ant hills be predicted by looking at characteristics of the area

3. Introduction The Abisko Ant Formica exsecta (or Narrow- headed wood ant) Nests found at: open heath land or moorland as well as scrub and forest clearings Nests are smaller than at other species (30x30 cm) and are partly under the ground Nests made of vegetation fragments, in Abisko: mainly Andromeda and Equisetum Dinner: other insects or honey dew

4. Introduction For Formica exsecta, much research is done on subjects like sex-ratio’s, but not on variables that are important for population bigness. So not much is known about that except for this common knowledge. But with this knowledge you would expect that you could predict the presence and abundancy of ant hills by looking at characteristics of the area (vegetation to build nests, other insects for food, enough room for building underground, etc. )

5. Hypothese In Abisko, you have open moorland with High, Low and No population of Ant nests We expect that this is the result of that Ants choose their area by looking at characteristics of the area Thereby: We expect that there is a correlation between the characteristics of the area and the occurrence of the ants

6. Methods Flora Fauna Soil-depth C/N-ratio pH Temperature Soil Moisture

7. Methods Flora Braun-Blanquet scale 1 plot near each hill 40x40 cm No visible influence of the ants Close enough to predict the same characteristics at the real ant spot Fauna 1 Pitt-Fall at each hill in same plot Fauna determination + counting

8. Methods Soil depth Measure depth 5 times at each plot Random places C/N ratio Take 1 soil sample at each plot Standard procedure

9. Methods pH 1 soil sample at each plot Extraction of liquid with centrifuge Standard pH measurement Temperature 5 times at each plot Random places Soil Moisture 1 soil sample at each plot (total weight - dry weight)/ total weight

10. Methods We used ANOVA’s to look to the variance of the characteristics of the plots within the area’s and between the area’s

11. Results Flora

12. Results Fauna

13. Results Soil Depth Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareF Sig. Between Groups 144.649272.324.516.621 Within Groups841.7876140.298 Total986.4368

14. Results C/N-ratio Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareF Sig. Between Groups 1301.2382650.619.500.630 Within Groups7800.82161300.137 Total9102.0608

15. Results pH Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareF Sig. Between Groups.2802.140.112.895 Within Groups7.46561.244 Total7.7458

16. Results Temperature Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareF Sig. Between Groups.7402.3701.708.259 Within Groups1.3006.217 Total2.0408

17. Results Soil Moisture Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareF Sig. Between Groups.0002.037.964 Within Groups.0186.003 Total.0188

18. Discussion Results Flora  much variation in areas themselves  variation between also great, but not significant Fauna  much variation in the areas and between the areas  No significant result Soil depth  high variation in areas, but smaller between areas  No significant result C/N ratio  C/N ratio lower in ant-areas than in control  not significant because of high in-area variation

19. Discussion Results pH  no singificant difference between areas Temperature  Area with high-ant abundancy has lower temperature, but not significant Soil moisture  little difference between areas  variation in control area greater than in ant areas

20. Discussion The settlement and abundance of ants (hills) doesn’t seem related to the research variables The depth is very variable due to the fact that the terrain below the soil is rocky. Maybe sunlight (and related place on the mountain side) and enough food resources are more important More research is necessary.

21. Discussion Fauna has much in-group variation: –Too few fauna samples due to too little pitfalls –Pitfalls could have had more result if they could stand for an extended period of time –Other catching methods? Vegetation has much in-group variation. –Possible solution  taking more samples per area to average (power problem) C/N ratio has much in-group variation. –Possible solution  taking more samples to average C/N ratio per area (power problem)

22. Discussion Variance within area’s looks like a factor that might be important, but too few freedom degrees to proof something Maybe Ants don't care about the characteristics, its known that ants in a certain amount can create there own environment en maintain moist and temperature within the nests and the population answer must be searched in other explanations like relation we looked at random locations within the control area, but ants might only look at the unsuitable border of a terrain At last, the examined plots could differ from the real plots, but it is impossible to look at the former characteristics

23. Take Home Message No significant results found Settlement and abundance of ants isn’t related to soil depth, pH, soil temperature, soil moisture (although variance might be a factor) Settlement of ants can be related to flora and fauna, but more samples are needed Other area characteristics or totally other explanations might be important So: better and more research!

24. Time to rest!

25. Credits: Deze powerpoint is gemaakt door: –David van Diepen Kijk voor meer powerpoints op: –www.davidvandiepen.nlwww.davidvandiepen.nl Ik vind het leuk als u een berichtje achterlaat op mijn gastenboek!