A Study of Ant Diversity in Selected Sites of Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, India

Abstract

The study examined the diversity of ants in selected areas of Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kannur district, Kerala. This study showed 19 species of ants in the selected study area using standard collection protocols and techniques. The sampled specimens represented 19 species under 4 subfamilies. Among those, the most diverse subfamily was Formicinae followed by myrmicinae, Ponerinae and dolichoderinae. The smallest number of species belonged to the dolichoderinae. A total of 1470 organisms belonging to 12 genus and 19 species were observed from 3 different ecosystems. Among the sampled genera, one which showed the highest number of species representation was Camponotus with 6 species. Three species were found only in forested areas and four species found only in agricultural area. However 11 species were observed from both the habitats. The present study provides valuable information of ant diversity in this region and also revealed that the Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary has a rich diversity of ants in spite of regular alteration in habitat of these ants. This study shows that the ants could survive against the odds and this study area served as a mini model to examine the persistence of ant species in a locality.

Full text

Joseph & Thomas /IJBAS/10(4) 2021 ; 70-74
International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 70
Full Length Research Paper
A Study of Ant Diversity in Selected Sites of Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary,
Kerala, India
Ajay Joseph and Sabitha Thomas*
Department of Zoology, St. Joseph's College (Autonomous), Bengaluru-27, India.
ARTICLE INFORMATION ABSTRACT
Introduction
Insects are virtually everywhere on the Earth’s surface; excluded only the extremes of climate at the poles and on the peaks of
highest mountains; just a few species live in the sea .They have a strong hold in most ecosystem processes as they are pollinators
and nutrient cyclers. A large number of them act on insect predators and mutualist of all of which require conservation. They have
lived on Earth about 300 million years compared with less than 1 million for man and during this time they have evolved in many
direction to become adapted for life in almost every type of habitat. Ants are ubiquitous, diverse, abundant, and fairly well
described (Alonso and Agosti 2000). Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) are eusocial cosmopolitan insects with about 13,262
species and 1941 subspecies, classified into 333 genera and 17 subfamilies (Bolton 2017). Ants respond to a variety of
disturbances and have served as bioindicators to assess effects of forest clearing (King et al. 1998; Gascon et al.1999) and
agriculture (Perfecto and Snelling1995; Philpott et al. 2006).
Ants comprises of great many insects which are beneficial to man .They play important role within the terrestrial ecosystems
because they have numerous interactions with different plant species, including seed dispersers, leaf- and seed- predators, and in
some cases, as pollinators. Ants are found everywhere, except in Iceland, Green- land and Antarctica, but the number of species
declines with increasing latitude, altitude and aridity. Currently, there are 15,983 extant ant species or subspecies as per the recent
classification. They are grouped into 20 subfamilies, with 464 genera. All of these belong to a single family called Formicidae
included in the super family Vespoidea of the order Hymenoptera, which is placed in the largest class Insecta in the animal
kingdom. A total of 828 valid species and subspecies names belonging to 100 genera are listed from India. Most of the ants have
either a direct or indirect relationship with vegetation. Some of these are highly specific to the habitat in which they occur,
depending on the maximum benefits they attain for the nesting, mating and food availability. They are widely used to assess
landscape disturbance and species diversity (Paknia & Pfeiffer 2011). Using insects to study how creation of mosaics,
fragmentation of land, deforestation and creation of monocultures have an impact on diversity and stability of an ecosystem is a
challenging and interesting task as it not only involves the taxonomy of concerned group but is also related to the behavioural
aspects of the taxa under study.
Hence the present study investigates the diversity of Hymenopterans (Formicidae) in the Aralam forest, to assess the habitat
preference of ant species in different vegetation types of agricultural and forest ecosystems,to assess to distribution and
Vol. 10. No.4. 2021
©Copyright by CRDEEP Journals. All Rights Reserved.
Contents available at:
www.crdeepjournal.org
International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2277-1921) (CIF:3.658 ; SJIF: 6.823)
(A Peer Reviewed Quarterly Journal)
Corresponding Author:
Sabitha Thomas
Article history:
Received:13-12-2021
Revised: 18-12-2021
Accepted: 25-12-2021
Published: 29-12-2021
Key words:
Biodiversity, Aralam
Wildlife Sanctuary,
agricultural area, habitat,
Ants.
The study examined the diversity of ants in selected areas of Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary,
Kannur district, Kerala. This study showed 19 species of ants in the selected study area using
standard collection protocols and techniques. The sampled specimens represented 19 species
under 4 subfamilies. Among those, the most diverse subfamily was Formicinae followed by
myrmicinae, Ponerinae and dolichoderinae. The smallest number of species belonged to the
dolichoderinae. A total of 1470 organisms belonging to 12 genus and 19 species were observed
from 3 different ecosystems. Among the sampled genera, one which showed the highest
number of species representation was Camponotus with 6 species. Three species were found
only in forested areas and four species found only in agricultural area. However 11 species were
observed from both the habitats. The present study provides valuable information of ant
diversity in this region and also revealed that the Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary has a rich diversity
of ants in spite of regular alteration in habitat of these ants. This study shows that the ants
could survive against the odds and this study area served as a mini model to examine the
persistence of ant species in a locality.

Joseph & Thomas /IJBAS/10(4) 2021 ; 70-74
International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 71
abundance of ants in forest and agricultural ecosystems. The study is important as there is no adequate information pertaining to
ant diversity of this region.
Materials and methods
Study area
Aralam forest located in southeast part of Kannur district is one of the major ecotourism centre in Kerala. The forest area is at 55
km2 and the vegetation consists of semievergreen forest, riverine ecosystem and rock patches. It is situated between 11°52.44’
North latitude and 75°53.19’ East longitude. The major flora in Aralam forest are Theobroma cacao, Tectona grandis,Terminalia
tementosa, Bambusa arundinaria, Terminalia myriocarpa etc. Agricultural area considered for the study was in Peravoor
Panchayat in Kannur district. Vegetation in the agricultural area comprises of banana plantation, rubber plantation and pineapple
plantation. The predominant type of cultivation in Peravoor Panchayath is rubber. A notable feature of Peravoor Panchayath is
that one side of the area is of forest and the other side is of agricultural area.
Sample collection
During the study period, ants were collected from different habitats such as semi evergreen patches and riverine areas from
Aralam forest. Specimens were also collected from different types of agricultural plantation in Aralam farm namely pineapple,
rubber, and banana plantation.Ants were collected during morning and evening time using different methods as described by
Gadagkar et al., (1993). The specimens were collected using five different methods which includes pitfall trap, quadrate method,
opportunistic observation method, hand picking and scented trap methods.
Preservation and identification of specimens
Samples mixed with debris were separated from debrisand were washed with alcohol before preserving them.Immediately after
collection, all the specimens were sorted out based upon similar groups. The specimens were sealed and kept in separate vials in
70% alcohol with appropriate labels for further identification. The collected ants were identified up to genus and for few, species
level identification was done with the help of keys given by Ali (1992); Bingham (1903); Bolton, B.(1994); Rastogi et. al. (1997);
Tiwari (1999); Varghese (2002 & 2003).
Results and discussion
A total of 19 species of ants were collected and identified during the study period of which all belongs to the family Formicidae.
High species richness was observed from subfamily Formicinae (57%) while there were representatives from myrmicinae
(21%),Ponerinae (16%) and dolichoderinae (6%). High species diversity was observed in the agricultural ecosystem with 17
genera with 604 organisms, semi evergreen forest patch comprising of 14 genera with 798 organisms and riverine ecosystem
represented only a single genus with 68 organisms.
Table 1: Showing the species diversity from the study area
Sl. No
Family
Subfamily
Genus
Species
1
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Camponotus
angusticollis
2
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Camponotus
carin
3
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Camponotus
compressus
4
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Camponotus
parius
5
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Camponotus
mitis
6
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Camponotus
rufoglaucus
7
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Leptogenys
dentilobis
8
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Oecophylla
smaragdina
9
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Paratrechina
longicornis
10
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Polyrhachis
rastellata
11
Formicidiae
Formicinae
Polyrhachis
tibialis
12
Formicidiae
Myrmicinae
Monomorium
pharaonis
13
Formicidiae
Myrmicinae
Meranoplus
bicolor
14
Formicidiae
Myrmicinae
Myrmicaria
brunnea
15
Formicidiae
Myrmicinae
Solenopsis
geminata
16
Formicidiae
Ponerinae
Diacamma
assamense
17
Formicidiae
Ponerinae
Diacamma
sculptum
18
Formicidiae
Ponerinae
Odontomachus
haematodus
19
Formicidiae
Dolichoderinae
Technomyrmex
albipes
Table 2: Showing the diversity and distribution of ants in different ecosystems
Genus
Species
Agricultural
ecosystem
Riverine ecosystem
Semi evergreen
Forest ecosystem
Camponotus
angusticollis
Nil
Nil
30
Camponotus
carin
34
Nil
Nil
Camponotus
compressus
4
Nil
Nil
Camponotus
parius
17
Nil
34
Camponotus
mitis
13
Nil
Nil
Camponotus
rufoglaucus
6
Nil
44

Joseph & Thomas /IJBAS/10(4) 2021 ; 70-74
International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 72
Leptogenys
dentilobis
11
Nil
45
Oecophylla
smaragdina
120
Nil
200
Paratrechina
longicornis
8
Nil
20
Polyrhachis
rastellata
Nil
Nil
35
Polyrhachis
tibialis
60
Nil
152
Monomorium
pharaonis
68
Nil
Nil
Meranoplus
bicolor
7
Nil
14
Myrmicaria
brunnea
22
Nil
63
Solenopsis
geminata
55
Nil
67
Diacamma
assamense
20
Nil
24
Diacamma
sculptum
24
Nil
29
Odontomachus
haematodus
16
Nil
41
Technomyrmex
albipes
120
68
Nil
Fig 1: Graphical representation of ant species present in the agricultural plantation area
Fig 2: Graphical representation of species present in the riverine ecosystem
Fig 3: Graphical representation of different species present in the semi evergreen forest patch in Aralam forest area.
120
8 20
68
17 7
60
22 34 24 16
55
120
6 4 11 13
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
agricultural area
agricultural area
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Reverine
Reverine
0
50
100
150
200
250 Semi Evergreen
Semi Evergreen

Joseph & Thomas /IJBAS/10(4) 2021 ; 70-74
International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 73
The most dominant genus observed was Camponotus. There were 6 different species of Camponotus observed in the agricultural
ecosystem and three species were observed in the semi-evergreen forest patch, but none of it was observed in the riverine
ecosystem. The lowest species richness among all the ant species was observed for C. compressus with a total of 4 organisms
observed in the agricultural ecosystem. C. angusticullis and P. rastellata were found only in the semi-evergreen forest patch
whereas C. mitis, C. compressus and C. carin were observed only in the agricultural ecosystem.
In agricultural ecosystem as well as semi-evergreen forest patch, there was high species richness of O. smaragdina. It also
represented the highest number of organisms with a total of 320 in 2 ecosystems studied, but it was absent in the riverine
ecosystem. The weaver ant, O. smaragdina, is a well-known predator which is used as a biological control agent against various
agricultural pest species (Way & Khoo, 1991; Paulson & Akre, 1992; Way et. al., 2002).
Technomyrmex albipes was the only species observed in the riverine ecosystem. T. albipes is a scavenger that tramps/exploits
forests and open habitats. Tent-like nests made from debris (Tenbrink & Hara, 2002) are found in dry places above the ground,
mainly in trees, bushes, under palm fronds, in loose mulch, leaf litter, (Warner et al., 2002) rotting logs, under loose bark, and
sometimes under stones (in soil).
Conclusion
Ant species composition and their diversity patterns at the Aralam forest and its agricultural areas have been analysed in this
study. This study emphasizes the dominancy exhibited by the subfamily Formicinae and Myrmicinae, due to their ability to adapt
to different niches with a variety of feeding habits specific niche and food requirements. Habitats providing these specific niches
were less frequently present. From the present study it can be concluded that diversity of ants is different in these habitats in terms
of species richness, abundance and composition. Ants can be effectively used in indictor studies because they immediately
respond to any alteration in the surrounding environment. When assessing different taxa as disturbance indicators ants were better
performed as compared to other invertebrates such as spiders and hemipterans. The findings can be used to understand the
ecological sensitivities of ants at different regions and can be helpful for future conservation programmes. Detailed studies of
disturbed habitats are urgently needed according to extent of disturbance, type of disturbance, physicochemical properties of soil,
climatic factors, exotic flora and fauna etc.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank St. Joseph’s College (autonomous), Bangalore for the support in developing the ideas and conducting the
research.
References
Alonso LE, Agosti D (2000) Biodiversity studies, monitoring and ants: an overview. In: Agosti D, MajerJD,Alonso E, Shultz TR
(eds) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp 1–8
Ali, T.M. (1991), ―Ant fauna of Karnataka.‖ IUSSI Newsletter 5:1-8. | [3] Ali, T.M. (1992), ―Ant fauna of Karnataka.‖ IUSSI
Newsletter 6: 1-7.
Bingham, C.T. (1903), ―Fauna of BritishIndia.‖ Vol. II. Taylor Francis, London. Pp: 106.
Bolton, B. (1994), ―Identification guide to the ant genera of the world.‖ Harvard University Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts,
USA.
Bolton B. An Online Catalog of the Ants of the World [Internet]. 2017. http://www.antcat.org
Gadagkar, R., Nair, P., and Bhat, D.M. (1993), ―Ant species richness and diversity in some selectedlocalities in Western Ghats,
India.‖Hexapoda 5(2): 79-94.
Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO Jr, Malcolm JR, Stouffer PC, Vasconcelos HL, Laurance WF,Zimmerman B, Tocher M,
Borges S (1999) Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forestremnants. Biol Conserv 91:223–229
Global Invasive Species Database (2022) Species profile: Technomyrmex albipes. Downloaded from
http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=1061 on 03-03-2022.
King JR, Andersen AN, Cutter AD (1998) Ants as bioindicators of habitat disturbance: validation of thefunctional group model
for Australia’s humid tropics. BiodiversConserv 7:1627–1638
Paknia O, Pfeiffer M. (2011) Steppe versus desert: multi-scale spatial patterns in diversity of ant communities in Iran. Insect
Conservation and Diversity 4: 297–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00136.x
Perfecto I, Snelling R (1995) Biodiversity and transformation of a tropical agroecosystem—ants in coffeeplantations.EcolAppl
5:1084–109
Philpott SM, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2006) Effects of management intensity and season on arboreal antdiversity and abundance
in coffee agroecosystems.BiodiversConserv 15:139–155
Rastogi, N., Nair, P., Kolatkar, M., William, H., and Gadagkar, R. (1997), ―Ant fauna of The Indian Institute of Science Campus –
Survey and some preliminaryobservations.‖J.IndianInst.Sci 77: 133-140
Tiwari, R.N. (1999),―Taxonomic studies on Ants of a Southern India (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae).‖ Memories. 18: 1-96
Tenbrink, V. & A. Hara. (1992). Technomyrmex albipes. Beaumont Reaserach Center.
Available from:www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/technomy.htm
Varghese,T. (2002), ―Record of Strumigenysemmae(Emery) (Formicidae: Myrmicinae) from Bangalore, Karnataka and a key to
Indian species of Agriculture, Mysore state.‖
Varghese, T., (2003), ―Ants of the IndianInstitute of science campus‖. Technical report no 93, Centre for Ecological Sciences ,
Bangalore.

Joseph & Thomas /IJBAS/10(4) 2021 ; 70-74
International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 74
Way MJ, Khoo KC(1991). Colony dispersion and nesting habits of the ants,Dolichoderus thoracicusandOecophylla
smaragdina(Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in relation to their success as biological control agents on cocoa. Bulletin of
Entomological Research. 81:341-350
Paulson GS, Akre RD (1992). Evaluating the effectiveness of ants as biological control agents of pear psylla (Homoptera,
Psyllidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 1992;85:70-73
Way MJ, Javier G, Heong KL. The role of ants, especially the fire ant,Solenopsis geminata(Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in the
biological control of tropical upland rice pests. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 2002;92:431-437