Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2021, Vol. 13 Issue (3): 303-316    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-021-0006-4     CSTR: 32276.14.s40333-021-0006-4
Research article     
Plant community dynamics in arid lands: the role of desert ants
Mohsen SHARAFATMANDRAD*(), Azam KHOSRAVI MASHIZI
Department of Ecological Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Jiroft, Jiroft 7867161167, Iran
Download: HTML     PDF(499KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Ants (Formicidae, Hymenoptera) play an important role in seed bank, seedling establishment and plant composition of arid ecosystems. Thus, knowing plant-ant interaction provides useful information for managers to design restoration and conservation plans. In this study, the roles of desert harvester ants (Messor intermedius and Messor melancholicus) and scavenger ants (Cataglyphis nodus and Lepisiota semenovi) on plant communities were investigated in arid ecosystems of southeastern Iran. Two vegetation types were distinguished in the study area and the nest density of ant species was determined. Furthermore, plant composition and soil seed bank were estimated at different distances from the ant nests. Results showed that the density of M. intermedius and M. melancholicus nests was higher in dwarf shrub-shrub vegetation type and the density of C. nodus and L. semenovi nests was higher in dwarf shrub vegetation type. The harvester and scavenger ants had enhanced the seed bank to 55% and 70%, respectively. Therefore, the role of scavenger ants on the plant communities' seed bank was greater than that of harvester ants. Although the scavenger ants were more influential on the annuals and the invasive plant species, the radius impact of the harvester ants on the perennials was greater, i.e., a positive interaction existed between the perennial plants and the harvester ants. C. nodus and L. semenovi played an important role in enhancing the ecosystem's potential for restoration through establishment of pioneer species in early stage of succession. The activity of M. intermedius is crucial for the development and maintenance of climax plant communities in arid ecosystems through assisting the plant species' establishment in late stage of succession. It is essential to preserve the diversity of these key ant species for the maintenance and sustainability of shrubs in arid ecosystems.

Key words： ants      ecological succession      ecosystem      rangelands      shrubs      vegetation     
Received: 20 August 2020      Published: 10 March 2021
Corresponding Authors:
About author: * Mohsen SHARAFATMANDRAD (E-mail: mohsen.sharafatmandrad@gmail.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
SHARAFATMANDRAD Mohsen
KHOSRAVI MASHIZI Azam
Cite this article:

Mohsen SHARAFATMANDRAD, Azam KHOSRAVI MASHIZI. Plant community dynamics in arid lands: the role of desert ants. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(3): 303-316.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-021-0006-4     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2021/V13/I3/303

Fig. 1 Location of the study area and vegetation type in the Baqbazm Watershed, Iran. Dwarf shrub is Artemisia sieberi and dwarf shrub-shrub is Artemisia sieberi-Pteropyrum aucheri.
Vegetation type Elevation (m) Area (km2) Soil type Grazing intensity Dominant plant species
Dwarf shrub 2126 92 Sandy clay Medium Artemisia sieberi
Dwarf shrub-shrub 2346 112 Sandy loam Medium Artemisia sieberi-Pteropyrum aucheri
Table 1 Vegetation type in the Baghbazm Watershed, Iran
Plant species Family Life form Vegetation type Palatability Abbreviation Successional stage
DSh DSh-Sh
Aellenia subaphylla (C.A.M.) Botsch Chenopodiaceae Ch * * III A.sub Pioneer
Alhagi camelorum Boiss. et Bh. Fabaceae Ch * III A.cam Pioneer
Artemisia sieberi Besser. Asteraceae Ch * * II A.sie Late-successional
Boissiera squarrosa (Banks&Sol.) Nevski. Poaceae Th * III B.sqr Pioneer
Bromus tectorum L. Poaceae Th * * III B.tec Pioneer
Acanthophyllum macrodon Edgew. Caryophyllaceae Ch * III A.mac Late-successional
Eruca sativa Miller Brassicaceae Th * * III E.sat Early-successional
Ferula assa-foetida L. Apiaceae Hem * II F.ass Late-successional
Peganum harmala L. Zygophyllaceae Hem * III P.har Pioneer
Pteropyrum aucheri Jaub .et. Sp. Polygonaceae Ph * II P.auc Late-successional
Salsola brachiata Pall Chenopodiaceae Th * * III S.bra Pioneer
Salsola kali L. Chenopodiaceae Th * III S.kal Early-successional
Scariola orientalis L. Asteraceae Ch * III S.ori Late-successional
Echinops ritrodes Bunge Asteraceae Hem * * III E.rit Early-successional
Launaea acanthodes (Boiss.) O.Kuntze Asteraceae Ch * II L.aca Pioneer
Zygophyllum fabago L. Zygophyllaceae Ph * II Z.fab Late-successional
Gundelia tournefortii L. Asteraceae Hem * II G.tou Early-successional
Eremurus persicus (Jaub&Spach) Boiss. Liliaceae Ge * * II E.per Late-successional
Cousinia nekarmanica Rech.f. Asteraceae Th * * III C.nek Pioneer
Taraxacum roseum Bornm. ex Hand.-Mazz. Asteraceae Th * * I T.ros Late-successional
Oryzopsis holciformis (M.Bieb.) Hack. Poaceae Hem * III O.hol Late-successional
Euphorbia denticulata Lam. Euphorbiaceae Th * III E.den Early-successional
Bromus dantoniae Trin. Poaceae Th * * III B.dan Early-successional
Centaurea virgata Lamarck. Asteraceae Th * * III C.vir Early-successional
Nepeta heliotropifolia Lam. Lamiaceae Hem * II N.hel Late-successional
Stipa barbata Desf. Poaceae Hem * * II S.bar Late-successional
Noaea mucronata (Forssk.) Asch.& Schweinf. Chenopodiaceae Ch * III N.muc Early-successional
Hertia angustifolia (DC.) Kuntze Asteraceae Ph * * II H.ang Late-successional
Stachys inflata Benth. Lamiaceae Th * * II S.inf Late-successional
Table 2 Plant species, family, life form, palatability class and successional stage in two vegetation types
Fig. 2 Nest density of different ant species in two vegetation types. M.int, Messor intermedius; M.mel, Messor melancholicus; C.nod, Cataglyphis nodus; L.sem, Lepisiota semenovi. Bars are standard deviations. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between two vegetation types within the same ant at P<0.05 level.
Fig. 3 Distribution of plant species, and harvester and scavenger ants along two first axes of principal component analysis (PCA). M.int, Messor intermedius; M.mel, Messor melancholicus; C.nod, Cataglyphis nodus; L.sem, Lepisiota semenovi.
Vegetation type Ant nests and control site Density (individuals/m2) Canopy cover
(%)		 Shannon's diversity Richness
Dwarf shrub L.sem 0.73±0.64a 10.40±1.69a 0.82±0.81a 7.42±3.63a
C.nod 0.61±0.34a 9.76±1.24a 0.70±0.63a 6.50±4.72a
M.int 0.95±0.68b 24.81±2.60b 1.38±0.85b 5.43±2.69a
M.mel 0.82±0.72a 17.30±2.60b 1.42±0.86b 5.63±3.75a
Control 0.49±0.33c 2.73±1.64c 0.43±0.35c 3.21±1.73b
Dwarf shrub-shrub L.sem 0.86±0.47a 11.27±1.61a 1.40±0.59a 8.26±1.69a
C.nod 0.72±0.35a 11.47±0.23a 0.93±0.43b 6.40±6.39a
M.int 1.79±0.88b 15.23±2.16b 0.82±0.39b 6.12±3.19a
M.mel 1.12±0.65b 14.57±3.59b 0.74±0.69b 5.42±2.79a
Control 0.48±0.31c 3.23±2.74c 0.40±0.29ac 2.21±1.35b
Table 3 Density, canopy cover, Shannon's diversity index and richness of seedlings near ant nests and control site in two vegetation types
Plant species Dwarf shrub-shrub (individuals/m2) Dwarf shrub (individuals/m2)
L.sem C.nod M.int M.mel Control L.sem C.nod M.int M.mel Control
A.sub 0.3±0.1 0 0.8±0.6 0.5±0.2 0 0.7±0.2 1.8±0.7 1.7±0.6 0 0
A.cam 1.3±1.2 1.6±1.3 0 0 0.6±0.3 0.7±0.4 0.6±0.3 0 0 0
A.sie 4.1±3.5 2.7±1.1 6.8±4.4 5.3±0.1 1.3±0.7 8.2±2.1 8.3±2.8 11.3±10.7 9.5±8.4 3.3±2.8
B.sqr 2.3±1.1 1.5±1.3 0.8±0.6 0 0.3±0.2 3.4±2.5 2.1±1.6 0 0 0.4±0.3
B.tec 1.4±1.6 1.5±0.7 0.5±0.3 0 0 1.8±1.2 1.4±0.7 0 0 0.7±0.4
A.mac 0 0.5±0.1 1.2±0.6 0.5±0.3 0.3±0.1 0 0 2.1±1.7 1.3±1.2 0
E.sat 0.6±0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.4±0.1 0 0 0
F.ass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 6±0.1 0 0
P.har 0.6±0.3 0.5±0.2 0 0 0 0 0.8±0.2 0 0 0.6±0.4
P.auc 0.7±0.2 0.6±0. 4 4.5±1.3 2.6±1.2 0.5±0.2 0 0 0 0 0
S.bra 0.4±0.3 0 0 0 0 1.3±0.9 0.8±0.5 0 0 0.5±0.4
S.kal 0 0.3±0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S.ori 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3±0.8 0.9±0.6 0
E.rit 0.8±0.6 0 0 0 0 1.3±0.7 1.2±0.6 0 0 0.6±0.5
L.aca 0 0 0 0 0 0.3±0.1 0.5±0.2 0 0 0
Z.fab 0 0 0.9±0.2 0 0 0 0 1.8±1.3 1.3±1.1 0.7±0.5
G.tou 0.4±0.3 0.6±0.4 0 0 0.6±0.2 0 0.8±0.4 0 0 0
E.per 0 0 0.6±0.2 0.3±0.1 0 0 0 0.4±0.3 0 0
C.nek 0.4±0.2 0.5±0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T.ros 0 0.6±0.2 0 0.5±0.4 0 0 0.6±0.2 0 1.4±0.6 0.4±0.2
O.hol 0.4±0.1 0.5±0.3 0 0 0.3±0.2 0.8±0.2 0.6±0.4 0 0 0
E.den 0.7±0.3 0.6±0.2 0 0 0.2±0.1 0 0.3±0.1 0 0 0.5±0.2
B.dan 0 0 0 0 0.4±0.1 0 0 0 0 0
C.vir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6±0.3 0 0.5±0.3
N.hel 0 0 0.5±0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S.bar 0 0 0.8±0.7 0 0 0 0.7±0.3 0.2±0.1 0 0.8±0.6
N.muc 0 0.3±0.1 0 0 0 0.6±0.5 0 0 0 0
H.ang 0 0 0.8±0.7 0.6±0.3 0 0 0 0.9±0.3 0.7±0.4 0.5±0.2
S.inf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7±0.4 0.8±0.6 0 0
Table 4 Density of seed bank near ant nests and control site in two vegetation types
Fig. 4 Density of pioneer, early- (a) and late-successional (b) species in different distances from nests of harvester and scavenger ants. Bars indicate standard deviations.
Item L.sem C.nod M.int M.mel
Plant attribute AIC=345.67;
Residual
deviance=476.4		 AIC=452.97;
Residual deviance=408.3
 AIC=397.23;
Residual
deviance=312.8		 AIC=492.74;
Residual
deviance=438.1
Palatability 1.03ns 2.43ns 37.98** 26.65**
Life form 5.32* 5.21* 7.23* 6.23*
Abundance of invasive plants 7.23* 14.12** 1.23ns 1.65ns
Vitality 2.34ns 6.23* 23.43** 13.23**
Habitat fragmentation -16.23** -21.32** -58.23** -32.12**
Seed bank 5.23* 5.47* 1.15ns 0.79ns
Litter 6.53* 7.53* 6.14* 2.13ns
Species diversity 12.12** 13.32** 4.32* 5.23*
Species richness 5.13* 6.32** 5.23* 5.12*
Table 5 Result of generalized linear model (GLM) for the relationship between ecosystem structural attribute and density of four ant species
Item Pioneer and early-successional species Late-successional species
Species Nest Species Nest
F P value F P value F P value F P value
Vegetation type 0.15 0.854 0.11 0.892 2.82 0.101 2.12 0.231
Log distance from nest 5.85 0.003 16.87 0 12.32 0 17.26 0
Log nest density 3.98 0.043 2.2 0.107 4.65 0.005 4.13 0.006
Ant type 29.79 0 13.85 0 25.65 0 18.85 0
Log distance from nest×Log nest density 1.34 0.432 0.87 0.532 1.65 0.321 1.76 0.316
Log distance from nest×Ant type 18.43 0 14.72 0 21.76 0 15.76 0
Vegetation type×Log distance from nest 0.56 0.734 0.43 0.768 1.86 0.321 2.65 0.212
Vegetation type×Log nest density 0.02 0.987 0.11 0.893 1.12 0.476 1.16 0.453
Vegetation type×Ant type 2.76 0.123 2.16 0.236 1.43 0.412 1.54 0.328
Table 6 Results of ANCOVA (covariance analysis) for vegetation type, log nest density, ant type and log distance from nest in pioneer, early- and late-successional species
[1]   Abe T, Higashi M. 2001. Isoptera. In: Levin S A. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Waltham: Academic Press, 408-433.
[2]   Almeida F S, Elizalde L, Maria L M S, et al. 2019. The effects of two abundant ant species on soil nutrients and seedling recruitment in Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 63(4):296-301.
[3]   Amiri F, Ariapour A, Fadai S. 2008. Effects of livestock grazing on vegetation composition and soil moisture properties in grazed and non-grazed range site. Journal of Biological Sciences, 8:1289-1297.
[4]   Anderson J M. 1995. Soil organisms as engineers: microsite modulation of macroscale processes. In: Jones C G, Lawton J H. Linking Species and Ecosystems. London: Chapman and Hall, 94-106.
[5]   Arnan X, Retana J, Rodrigo A, et al. 2010. Foraging behaviour of harvesting ants determines seed removal and dispersal. Insectes Sociaux, 57:421-430.
[6]   Arnol'di K V. 1977. Review of the harvester ants of the genus Messor (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in the fauna of the USSR. Zoologichesky Zhurnal, 56:1637-1648.
[7]   Azcárate F, Arqueros L, Sánchez A, et al. 2005. Seed and fruit selection by harvester ants, Messor barbarus, in Mediterranean grassland and scrubland. Functional Ecology, 19(2):273-283.
[8]   Berg-Binder M C, Suarez A V. 2012. Testing the directed dispersal hypothesis: are native ant mounds (Formica sp.) favorable microhabitats for an invasive plant? Oecologia, 169:763-772.
pmid: 22231374
[9]   Bestelmeyer B, Wiens J. 2003. Scavenging ant foraging behavior and variation in the scale of nutrient redistribution among semi-arid grasslands. Journal of Arid Environments, 53(3):373-386.
[10]   Bolker B M, Brooks M E, Clark C J, et al. 2009. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(3):127-135.
pmid: 19185386
[11]   Boulay R, Carro F, Soriguer R C, et al. 2007. Synchrony between fruit maturation and effective dispersers' foraging activity increases seed protection against seed predators. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 274(1625):2515-2522.
[12]   Brown G, Scherber C, Ramos J P, et al. 2012. The effects of harvester ant (Messor ebeninus Forel) nests on vegetation and soil properties in a desert dwarf shrub community in north-eastern Arabia. Flora, 207(7):503-511.
[13]   Brullé G A. 1833. Insects. In: Bory de Saint-Vincent J B G M. Morea Scientific Expedition, Physical Sciences Section. Zoology and Botany. Paris: Berge-Levrault, 289-336. (in French)
[14]   Cammerat L H, Willott S J, Compton S G, et al. 2002. The effects of ants' nests on the physical, chemical & hydrological properties of a rangeland soil in semi-arid Spain. Geoderma, 105(1-2):1-20.
[15]   Chaideftou E, Thanos C A, Bergmeier E, et al. 2009. Seed bank composition and above-ground vegetation in response to grazing in sub-Mediterranean oak forests (NW Greece). Plant Ecology, 201:255-265.
[16]   Costa A N, Vasconcelos H L, Vieira-Neto E, et al. 2008. Do herbivores exert top-down effects in neotropical savannas? Estimates of biomass consumption by leaf-cutter ants. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19(6):849-854.
[17]   Crawford C S. 1981. Biology of Desert Invertebrates. Berlin: Springer, 300.
[18]   Crist T O, MacMahon J A. 1992. Harvester ant foraging and shrub-steppe seeds: interactions of seed resources and seed use. Ecology, 73(5):1768-1779.
[19]   Csata E, Dussutour A. 2019. Nutrient regulation in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a review. Myrmecological News, 29:111-124.
[20]   de Almeida T, Blight O, Mesléard F, et al. 2020. Harvester ants as ecological engineers for Mediterranean grassland restoration: Impacts on soil and vegetation. Biological Conservation, 245:108547.
[21]   Detrain C, Pasteels J. 2000. Seed preferences of the harvester ant Messor barbarus in a Mediterranean mosaic grassland (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology, 35(1):35-48.
[22]   Dodson E K, Burton J I, Puettmann K J. 2014. Multiscale controls on natural regeneration dynamics after partial overstory removal in Douglas-fir forests in western Oregon, USA. Forest Science, 60(5):953-961.
[23]   Dostal P, Breznova M, Kozlıckova V, et al. 2005. Ant-induced soil modification and its effect on plant below-ground biomass. Pedobiologia, 49(2):127-137.
[24]   Eldridge D J, Oliver I, Val J, et al. 2020. Grazing and aridity have contrasting effects on the functional and taxonomic diversity of ants. Basic and Applied Ecology, 48:73-82.
[25]   Erkkilä J B, Heli M. 1998. Seed banks of grazed and ungrazed Baltic seashore meadows. Journal of Vegetation Science, 9(3):395-408.
[26]   Espadaler X, Gomez C. 1996. Seed production, predation and dispersal in the Mediterranean myrmecochore Euphorbia characias (Euphorbiaceae). Ecography, 19(1):7-15
[27]   Fagundes M, Weisser W, Ganade G. 2018. The role of nurse successional stages on species-specific facilitation in drylands: Nurse traits and facilitation skills. Ecology and Evolution, 8(10):5173-5184.
doi: 10.1002/ece3.3962 pmid: 29876091
[28]   Farji-Brener A G, Gianoli E, Molina-Montenegro M A. 2009. Small-scale disturbances spread along trophic chains: leaf-cutting ant nests, plants, aphids and tending ants. Ecological Research, 24(1):139-145.
[29]   Farji-Brener A G, Werenkraut V. 2015. A meta-analysis of leaf-cutting ant nest effects on soil fertility and plant performance. Ecological Entomology, 40(2):150-158.
[30]   Flowers B, Huang K T. 2020. Analysis of the habitat fragmentation of ecosystems in Belize using landscape metrics. Sustainability, 12(7):3024.
[31]   Folgarait P. 1998. Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodiversity Conservation, 7:1221-1244.
[32]   Frouz J, Jílková V, Sorvari J. 2016. Contribution of wood ants to nutrient cycling and ecosystem function. In: Stockan J A. Wood Ant Ecology and Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207-220.
[33]   Ginzburg O, Whitford W G, Steinberger W. 2008. Effects of harvester ant (Messor spp.) activity on soil properties and microbial communities in a Negev desert ecosystem. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 45:165-173.
[34]   Gosselin S, Hoegberg L C, Hoffman R S, et al. 2016. Evidence-based recommendations on the use of intravenous lipid emulsion therapy in poisoning. Clinical Toxicology, 54(10):899-923.
pmid: 27608281
[35]   Grime J P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist, 111:1169-1194.
[36]   Grimes R F. 1978. Crown assessment of natural spotted gum (Eucalyptus Maculata)-ironbark (Eucalyptus fibrosa, Eucalyptus drepanophylla) forest. Government Printer: Brisbane, 16.
[37]   Harkness R, Wehner R. 1977. Cataglyphis. Endeavour, 1(3-4):115-121.
[38]   Harrington N G, Driver M A. 1995. The effect of fire and ants on the seed‐bank of a shrub in a semi-arid grassland. Australian Journal of Ecology, 20(4):538-547.
[39]   Hopfensperger K N. 2007. A review of similarity between seed bank and standing vegetation across ecosystems. Oikos, 116(9):1438-1448.
[40]   Hughes L, Westoby M. 1990. Removal rates of seeds adapted for dispersal by ants. Ecology 71(1):138-148.
[41]   Inés P G, de Casenave L, Nestor J. 2014. Effect of harvester ants of the genus Pogonomyrmex on the soil seed bank around their nests in the central Monte Desert, Argentina. Ecological Entomology, 39(5):610-619.
[42]   Jabarzare A, Bassiri M, Vahabi M R. 2011. Effects of light and drought stress on germination of Artemisia sieberi Besser. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(56):11903-11910.
[43]   Keith H, Macke B G, Lindenmayer D B. 2009. Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world's most carbon-dense forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(28):11635-11640.
[44]   Lafleur B, Hooperbui L M, Mumma P, et al. 2005. Soil fertility and plant growth in soils from pine forests & plantations: effect of invasive red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). Pedobiologia, 49(5):415-423.
[45]   Lavelle P. 1997. Faunal activities and soil processes: adaptive strategies that determine ecosystem function. Advances in Ecological Research, 27:93-132.
[46]   Leal I R, Wirth R, Tabarelli M. 2007. Seed dispersal by ants in the semi-arid Caatinga of North-East Brazil. Annals of Botany, 99(5):885-894.
pmid: 17430980
[47]   Lei S A. 2000. Ecological impacts of seed harvester ants on soil attributes in a Larrea-dominated shrubland. Western North American Naturalist, 60(4):439-444.
[48]   Levine N, Ben-Zvi G, Seifan M, et al. 2019. Investment in reward by ant-dispersed plants consistently selects for better partners along a geographic gradient. AoB Plants, 11(3): plz027.
doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plz027 pmid: 31139335
[49]   Luna P, García-Chávez J H, Dáttilo W. 2018. Complex foraging ecology of the red harvester ant and its effect on the soil seed bank. Acta Oecologica, 86:57-65.
[50]   MacMahon J A, Mull J F, Crist T. 2000. Harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.): their community and ecosystem influences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31:265-291.
[51]   Maia G N. 2012. Caatinga: Trees and Shrubs and their Uses (2nd ed.). Brazil: Fortaleza, 255. (in Portuguese)
[52]   Mbuthia E, Shariff J, Raman A, et al. 2012. Abundance and diversity of soil arthropods and fungi in shelterbelts integrated with pastures in the central tablelands of New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Forest Science, 58(12):560-568.
[53]   McCune B, Mefford M J. 1999. PC-ORD for Windows: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, version 4. Glenden Beach, OR: MJM Software.
pmid: 33877906
[54]   Morecroft M D, Masters G J, Brown V K, et al. 2004. Changing precipitation patterns alter plant community dynamics and succession in an ex‐arable grassland. Functional Ecology, 18(5):648-655.
[55]   Moutinho P, Nepstad D, Davidson E. 2003. Influence of leaf-cutting ant nests on secondary forest growth and soil properties in Amazonia. Ecology, 84(5):1265-1276.
[56]   Ness J H, Morin D F, Giladi I. 2009. Uncommon specialization in a mutualism between a temperate herbaceous plant guild and an ant: are Aphaenogaster ants keystone mutualists? Oikos, 118(12):1793-1804.
[57]   Nicolai N, Smeins F, Cook J. 2008. Harvester ant nests improve recovery performance of drought impacted vegetation in grazing regimes of semiarid savanna, Texas. The American Midland Naturalist, 160(1):29-40.
[58]   Paolini K E, Modlin M, Suazo A A, et al. 2020. Harvester ant seed removal in an invaded sagebrush ecosystem: Implications for restoration. Ecology and Evolution, 10(24):13731-13741.
pmid: 33391676
[59]   Penn H J, Crist T O. 2018. From dispersal to predation: A global synthesis of ant-seed interactions. Ecology and Evolution, 8(18):9122-9138.
pmid: 30377488
[60]   Pfeiffer M, Huttenlocher H, Ayasse M. 2010. Myrmecochorous plants use chemical mimicry to cheat seed-dispersing ants. Functional Ecology, 24(3):545-555.
[61]   Pirk G I, de Casenave J L. 2014. Effect of harvester ants of the genus Pogonomyrmex on the soil seed bank around their nests in the central Monte desert, Argentina. Ecological Entomology, 39(5):610-619.
[62]   Rafiei A Z, Matinkhah S H. 2013. The effect of petropyrum aucheri seed storage treatment on its germination properties. Proceedings of 1st National Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources, International Center for Conferences and Seminars on Sustainable Development of Science in the Islamic World, Iran. 1508.
[63]   Rahman M, Roy B. 2014. Population structure and curative uses of invasive plants in and around the protected forests of Bangladesh: A means of utilization of potential invasive species. Journal of Ecosystems, 1:1-14.
[64]   Ruano F, Tinaut A, Soler J J. 2000. High surface temperatures select for individual foraging in ants. Behavioral Ecology, 11(4):396-404.
[65]   Ruzsky M. 1905. The Ants of Russia (Formicariae Imperii Rossici). Systematics, Geography and Data on the Biology of Russian Ants. Charleston: Nabu Press, 126.
[66]   Safriel U, Adeel Z, Niemeijer D, et al. 2005. Dryland systems. Ecosystems and Human well-being: Current state and trends. In: Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press, 623-662.
[67]   Saha A, Carvalho K, Sternberg L, et al. 2012. Effect of leaf-cutting ant nests on plant growth in an oligotrophic Amazon rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 28(3):263-270.
[68]   Samadi S, Ghorbani A, Choukali M, et al. 2020. Effect of grazing exclosure on vegetation characteristics and soil properties in the Mahabad Sabzepoush rangelands, Iran. Ecopersia, 9(2):139-152.
[69]   Santschi F. 1927. Revision of Messors from Instabilis SM Group (Hymenopt). Charleston: Nabu Press, 24.
[70]   Sternberg M, Gutman M, Perevolotsky A, et al. 2003. Effects of grazing on soil seed bank dynamics: An approach with functional groups. Journal of Vegetable Science, 14(3):375-386.
[71]   Takahashi S, Itino T. 2012. Larger seeds are dispersed farther: the long-distance seed disperser ant Aphaenogaster famelica prefers larger seeds. Sociobiology, 59:1401-1411.
[72]   Ter Heerdt G N J, Verwey G L, Bekker R M, et al. 1996. An improved method for seed-bank analysis: seedling emergence after removing the soil by sieving. Functional Ecology, 10(1):144-151.
[73]   Veen G F, Geuverink E, Olff H. 2012. Large grazers modify effects of aboveground-belowground interactions on small-scale plant community composition. Oecologia, 168(2):511-518.
pmid: 21863246
[74]   Vittoz P, Engler R. 2007. Seed dispersal distances: A typology based on dispersal modes and plant traits. Botanica Helvetica, 117:109-124.
[75]   Wagner D, Jones J B, Gordon D M. 2004. Development of harvester ant colonies alters soil chemistry. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 36(5):797-780.
[76]   Wagner D, Nicklen E F. 2010. Ant nest location, soil nutrients and nutrient uptake by ant-associated plants: does extrafloral nectar attract ant nests and thereby enhance plant nutrition? Journal of Ecology, 98(3):614-624.
[77]   Wang X Y, Ma Q L, Jin H J, et al. 2019. Change in characteristics of soil carbon and nitrogen during the succession of Nitraria Tangutorum in an arid desert area. Sustainability, 11(4):1146.
doi: 10.3390/su11041146
[78]   Way M J, Khoo K C. 1992. Role of ants in pest management. Annual Review of Entomology, 37:479-503.
[79]   Wills B D, Landis D A. 2018. The role of ants in north temperate grasslands: a review. Oecologia, 186:323-338.
doi: 10.1007/s00442-017-4007-0 pmid: 29147779
[80]   Zar J H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis, Upeer Saddle River (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 718.
[1] SUN Chao, BAI Xuelian, WANG Xinping, ZHAO Wenzhi, WEI Lemin. Response of vegetation variation to climate change and human activities in the Shiyang River Basin of China during 2001-2022[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(8): 1044-1061.
[2] YAN Yujie, CHENG Yiben, XIN Zhiming, ZHOU Junyu, ZHOU Mengyao, WANG Xiaoyu. Impacts of climate change and human activities on vegetation dynamics on the Mongolian Plateau, East Asia from 2000 to 2023[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(8): 1062-1079.
[3] LU Qing, KANG Haili, ZHANG Fuqing, XIA Yuanping, YAN Bing. Impact of climate and human activity on NDVI of various vegetation types in the Three-River Source Region, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(8): 1080-1097.
[4] HAN Qifei, XU Wei, LI Chaofan. Effects of nitrogen deposition on the carbon budget and water stress in Central Asia under climate change[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(8): 1118-1129.
[5] SUN Hui, ZHAO Yunge, GAO Liqian, XU Mingxiang. Reasonable grazing may balance the conflict between grassland utilization and soil conservation in the semi-arid hilly areas, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(8): 1130-1146.
[6] ZUBAIDA Muyibul. Trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services in Yutian County along the Keriya River Basin, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(7): 943-962.
[7] LI Chuanhua, ZHANG Liang, WANG Hongjie, PENG Lixiao, YIN Peng, MIAO Peidong. Influence of vapor pressure deficit on vegetation growth in China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(6): 779-797.
[8] ZHU Haiqiang, WANG Jinlong, TANG Junhu, DING Zhaolong, GONG Lu. Spatiotemporal variations of ecosystem services and driving factors in the Tianchi Bogda Peak Natural Reserve of Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(6): 816-833.
[9] CAO Wenyu, BAI Jianjun, YU Leshan. Grassland-type ecosystem stability in China differs under the influence of drought and wet events[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(5): 615-631.
[10] QU Wenjie, ZHAO Wenzhi, YANG Xinguo, WANG Lei, ZHANG Xue, QU Jianjun. Effects of wind speed, underlying surface, and seed morphological traits on the secondary seed dispersal in the Tengger Desert, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(4): 531-549.
[11] SHEN Jianxiang, WANG Xin, WANG Lei, WANG Jiahui, QU Wenjie, ZHANG Xue, CHANG Xuanxuan, YANG Xinguo, CHEN Lin, QIN Weichun, ZHANG Bo, NIU Jinshuai. Spatiotemporal characteristics of seed rain and soil seed bank of artificial Caragana korshinskii Kom. forest in the Tengger Desert, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(4): 550-566.
[12] DUN Yaoquan, QU Jianjun, KANG Wenyan, LI Minlan, LIU Bin, WANG Tao, SHAO Mei. Formation and ecological response of sand patches in the protection system of Shapotou section of the Baotou-Lanzhou railway, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(2): 298-313.
[13] MAO Zhengjun, WANG Munan, CHU Jiwei, SUN Jiewen, LIANG Wei, YU Haiyong. Feature extraction and analysis of reclaimed vegetation in ecological restoration area of abandoned mines based on hyperspectral remote sensing images[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(10): 1409-1425.
[14] LIN Yanmin, HU Zhirui, LI Wenhui, CHEN Haonan, WANG Fang, NAN Xiongxiong, YANG Xuelong, ZHANG Wenjun. Response of ecosystem carbon storage to land use change from 1985 to 2050 in the Ningxia Section of Yellow River Basin, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(1): 110-130.
[15] WANG Jing, WEI Yulu, PENG Biao, LIU Siqi, LI Jianfeng. Spatiotemporal variations in ecosystem services and their trade-offs and synergies against the background of the gully control and land consolidation project on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(1): 131-145.