IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

Research article
erd

Diversity and Community Composition of Ants in theMixed Deciduous Forest, the Pine Forest and the Para
Rubber Plantation at Chulaborn Dam, Chaiyaphum
Province, the Northeastern Thailand
DUANGRAT THONGPHAK*
Entomology Section, Department of Plant Science and Agriculture Resources,
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
E-mail: duathg@kku.ac.th

CHITIMA KULSA
Entomology Section, Department of Plant Science and Agriculture Resources,
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, ThailandReceived 12 October 2013

Accepted 1 March 2014(*Corresponding author)

Abstract The species diversity of ants in three different land use types: a mixed deciduous
forest, pine forest and Para rubber plantation, were studied to determine and compare theant species diversity in these areas. Four sampling methods: handling capture overconstant time, honey bait trap, leaf litter sifting and soil sifting, were conducted from
September 2011 to September 2012, inclusive. The species richness of ants in the area was
40 identified species, belonging to 23 genera in five subfamilies. The Shannon-Wiener’s
species diversity index indicated that the diversity was the highest in the mixed deciduous
forest (2.65), followed by the pine forest (2.19) and lastly the Para rubber plantation (1.48).
The β-diversity, using Sorensen’s similarity coefficient to determine the similarity incommunity composition, was highest between the mixed deciduous forest and the Pine
Forest at 71%, and then between the mixed deciduous forest and Para rubber plantation at
61%, and between the pine forest and the Para rubber plantation at 53%, indicating thatboth ant species diversity and community composition were varied in these three sites
which may relate to their different land use types. Therefore, the information from thisstudy suggests that ant species diversity may be used to assist the conservation andmanagement planning of agro-forestry ecosystems.
Keywords ant, community composition, species diversity, land use type

INTRODUCTION
Ants play diverse and important ecological roles. They have functions in an ecosystem asherbivores, predators, prey, detritivores, mutualists and Alonso (2000) stated that their functions
are usually related to the species and genera they belong to. Mayati (1996) reported that they
improved soil, assisted in the decomposition process, create mycorrhizal reservoirs, effect nutrient
immobilization, water movement, nutrient cycling, soil movement and physical and chemicalchanges to the soil profile. Because of their ecological significance in forest ecosystems, ants are
considered suitable bioindicator species for biodiversity studies (Alonso, 2000). Moreover, ants havebeen used as biological agents of insect pests in agriculture in many countries such as Malaysia(Khoo and Chung, 1989) and Thailand (Kritsaneeapiboon and Saiboon, 2000). Although ants haverelatively low species diversity, they are the single most important arthropod group by theirdominance in animal biomass (Alonso and Agosti, 2000). Environmental changes have an impact
on macro-arthropod abundance (Pearson and Derr, 1986; Adis and Latif, 1996). Many ant species
are highly sensitive to the micro climate fluctuations and to habitat structure, and thus respondstrongly to environmental change (Anderson, 1990; Alonso, 2000). Overall, common species, mosthabitats are likely to have specialized species, which occur in sufficient species diversity andⒸ ISERD72

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

abundance as to be able to serve as suitable terrestrial indicator species of habitat quality andchanges. Thus, the objective of this study was to comparison between the diversity of ants at thereserve forest area of Chulaborn dam and rubber plantation.
METHODOLOGY
The study sites were located within the Chulaborn dam, Chaiyaphum province in northeast
Thailand. Three areas were selected based on differences in land use types: (i) a natural habitatrepresented by a mixed deciduous forest and a pine forest (ii) a monoculture based Para rubber
plantation. The ants were sampled two seasons which of wet season and dry season during
September 2011 to September 2012. The 100 m long line transects were established at each study
site. Collecting ant specimens were performed by four sampling methods; hand collecting (HC),leaf litter sampling (LL), honey bait (HB), and soil sampling (SS). Ant specimens were identified
to family, genus and species using the identification guides of Bolton (1994), Hölldobler andWilson (1990), and Wiwatwitthaya and Jaitrong (2001). The specimens were also compared withthe reference collections at the Ant Museum, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University. The
Shannon-Wiener’s diversity index (Krebs, 1999), was used to calculate the diversity of ants
collected. The formula of the Shannon-Wiener’s diversity index used is presented as follows:𝑠𝐻′ = ∑(𝑝𝑖)(ln 𝑝𝑖 )

(1)

𝑖=1

Where, H’ = Species diversity indexs = Number of species
pi = Proportion of the total sample belonging to ith species
The Sorensen’s similarity coefficient (Krebs, 1999) was used to measure the beta diversity orthe similarity between two study sites as follows:S=

2𝑎2𝑎 + 𝑏 + 𝑐(2)

Where, S = Sorensen’s similarity coefficienta = Number of species in site A and site B
b = Number of species in site B but not in site A
c = Number of species in site A but not in site BThe evenness index (Krebs, 1999) was calculated to determine the equal abundance of ants ineach study site as follows:
Evenness =𝐻′𝐻′𝑀𝐴𝑋(3)

Where, H’ = Observed index of species diversity
H’MAX = Maximum possible index of diversity
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A total of 40 ants species in 23 genera distributed among the five subfamilies were identified fromthree difference land use types using four sampling methods (Table 1). With the comparative ant
communities between the three sites, the highest number of species was recorded in the mixed
deciduous forest followed by the pine forest and the lowest in the Para rubber plantation. Twenty
eight species of ants in 21 genera and five subfamilies were found in the mixed deciduous forest
follow by 25 species in 20 general and five subfamilies from pine forest. The lastly, there are only
13 species in 13 genera and four subfamily from rubber plantation. Four species of ants such as
Pachycondyla luteipes, Pheidologeton affinis and Odontoponera denticulata, were found in allⒸ ISERD73

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

three land use types, whilst other species, such as Philidris sp.1, Camponoptus singualaris
Oecophylla smaragdina, Polyrhachis furcata, Aphaenogaster sp.1, Hypoponera sp.1, andPachycondyla higrite were found only in the mixed deciduous forest. Whereas, some species, suchas Polyrhachis cyaniventris Polyrhachis fruhstorferi, Polyrhachis sp.12, Aphaenogaster feae,
Pheidole sp.2, were found only in the pine forest and one species of Aphaenogaster sp.2 was foundonly in the Para rubber plantation. At the genus level of all sites, Polyrhachis had the highest
number of 8 species.
There was a difference in the number of ants species between wet and dry seasons, where in
the dry season ant species numbers were high in pine forest and in Para rubber plantation whereasslightly lower in the dry season in the mixed deciduous forest.
Table 1 Number of species, genera and family of ants in all sites at Chulabhorn Dam
NumberSubfamily
Dolichoderinae
Formicinae
Myrmicinae
Ponerinae
Pseudomyrmercinae
Total

Genus
3496
123Species
3141562
40Total(%)
7.5
35.0
37.5
15.0
5.0
100

Table 2 Number of Subfamily, genera and species of ants in difference land use types atChulaborn dam
NumberSubfamily
MDF
3485
1
21

Dolichoderinae
Formicinae
Myrmicinae
Ponerinae
Pseudomyrmercinae
Total

GenusPF2394220PRP
235313Species
PF27104225MDF
39105128

PRP235313Shannon index (H')

Note: MDF=Mixed deciduous forest, PF =Pine forest and PRP= Para rubber plantation

4Dry season

Wet season

3210MDF

PFPRP

Land types
MDF=Mixed deciduous forest, PF =Pine forest and PRP= Para rubber plantation

Fig. 1 Comparison between Shannon index (H’) of ant species in each land type at Chulaborn
dam
The Shannon-Wiener’s species diversity index (Fig. 1) indicated that the year round,diversity was the highest in the mixed deciduous forest, followed by the pine forest and lastly therubber plantation. Moreover, the highest value of the evenness index of ants was in the mixed
deciduous forest, followed closely by the pine forest, whereas that for the Para rubber plantation
was markedly lower (Fig. 2). This indicates that a relatively equal abundance of each ant speciesⒸ ISERD

74

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

was present in the mixed deciduous forest and the pine forest whereas the Para plantation had anunequal abundance of some ant species.
0.9
Dry season0.8Wet season

Evenness (J')

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.10MDFPF
Land types

PRP

MDF=Mixed deciduous forest, PF =Pine forest and PRP= Para rubber plantation

Fig. 2 Comparison between Evenness (J’) of ant species in each land type at Chulaborn dam
Table 3 The Sorensen’s similarity coefficient ants from the three sites
Types of land
MDF
PFPRP

Sorensen's similarity (%)
MDFPF
PRP
1
0.71
1
0.61
0.53
1

Note: MDF=Mixed deciduous forest, PF =Pine forest and PRP= Para rubber plantation

The species similarity between the mixed deciduous forest and the pine forest, as evaluated bySorensen’s similarity coefficient, was the highest whilst that between the mixed deciduous forest and
the Para rubber plantation and between the pine forest and the Para rubber plantation wereintermediate and the lowest, respectively (Table 3). The relatively high ant species diversity in themixed deciduous forest may be caused by the correspondingly high diversity in the plantcommunity and as such would potentially reflect the differences in the canopy cover and leaf
shedding. Hasin (2008) reported that the leaf litter, soil moisture content, and leaf litter biomass ineach study site would likely be affected by differences in each plant community. The leaf litter
provides both food and nest sites to many ant species, so it might be expected that an addition ofboth resources will produce a stronger response from litter-nesting ants (Armbrecht et al., 2006).
The higher species richness of ants in the natural forest than in the Para rubber plantation wassimilar to the reported trend for ant diversity at Sabah, Malaysia, which was higher in the primaryand secondary forests than in the oil palm plantation (Yahya, 2000). Similarly with our report thatthe highest ant species richness was in the mixed deciduous forest followed by the pine forest andthe Para rubber plantation, respectively, supporting that the forest is a more suitable habitat than thePara rubber plantation, all year round.
In the dry season, there were lower soil and litter moisture contents and a high temperature,
conditions which are unsuitable for ants and their prey leading to a lower ant biodiversity andpopulation levels and so a lower species number being recorded except in this study the mixed
deciduous forest was slightly higher in dry season. In the wet season, there is more soil and litter
moisture contents which are hence more suitable for many soil faunas that serve as ant prey. Thus,
with an increase in the population size and potential biodiversity, a higher of predatory ants were
found in this period. The similarity indices indicated that the species composition of ants between
the natural forest and the pine forest was higher than that between the pine forest and Para rubber
plantation. Compared with the primary land use as a natural forest, this result suggests that these amodified land usages reduce the ant diversity, meanwhile the Para rubber plantation can support alower ant biodiversity than the forests. This may be due to the fact that the tree canopy of the ParaⒸ ISERD75

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

rubber was treated all year round by some chemicals such as the herbicide that can also affect somearthropods and other food sources.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the difference in land use types, which may reflect the different land usages of thesesites but that awaits more detailed studies to confirm, potentially influenced the ant community
species diversity and composition, as somewhat intuitively expected but not to date ascertained forthese habitats. Some species were found in all three land use types, whilst other species were more
specialized being found only in specific microhabitats in the forest. If an understanding of
microhabitats used by specific ant species can be developed, along with the key trophic interactions,then the potential of using ants as terrestrial indicator species for detecting environmental changes
can potentially be reliably and easily (low cost and time) performed compared to some otherindicator species.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the Khon Kaen University funding 2012. The authors thank to thePlant Genetics Conservation Project under The Royal Initiative of Her Royal Highness Princess
Maha Chakri Sirindhorn for permission of conducting the research. Special thanks to Integrated
Water Resource Manegiment and Development Central Northeast Thailand.
REFERENCES
Adis, J. and Latif, M. 1996. Amazonian arthropod respond to El Nino. Biotropica, 28, 403-408.
Alonso, L.E. 2000. Ants as indicators of diversity. In: Ants: Standard method for measuring and monitoring
biodiversity. Agosti, D., Alonso, L.E., Majer, J.D. and Schultz, T.R. (Eds). Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C., USA, 80-88.
Alonso, L.E. and Agosti, D. 2000. Biological studies, monitoring, and ants: An overview. In: Ants: Standard
method for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Agosti, D., Alonso, L.E., Majer, J.D. and Schultz,T.R. (Eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 1-8.
Anderson, A.N. 1990. The use of ant communities to evaluate change in Australian terrestrial ecosystems: Areview and recipe. Proceedings of Ecological Society Australia, 16, 347-257.
Armbrecht, I., Perfecto, I. and Silverman, E. 2006. Limitation of nesting resources for ants in Colombian
forest and coffee plantations. Ecological Entomology, 31, 403-410.
Bolton, B. 1994. Identification guide to the ant genera of the world, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
USA, 222.
Hasin, S. 2008. Diversity and community structure of ants at Sakaerat Environmental Research Station,Nakhon Ratchasima province. Department of Forest Biology, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University.
Thailand. 94, (in Thai).
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O. 1990. The ants. Belknap Press, Cambridge, USA, 732.
Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological methodology. Addison- Educationall Publishers, California, USA, 581.
Khoo, K.C. and Chung, G.F. 1989. Use of black cocoa ant to control mirid damage in cocoa. The Planter,
Kuala Lumpur, 65, 370-383.
Kritsaneepaiboon, S. and Saiboon, S. 2000. Ant species (Hymenoptera:Formicidae) in longkong (Meliaceae:Aglaia dookkoo Griff.) plantation. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 22(3), 393-396.
Maryati, M. 1996. A review of research on ants in Malaysia. In: Biodiversity and the Dynamics ofEcosystems. I.M. Turner, C.H. Diong, S.S.L. Lim and P.K.L. Ng, (eds.). Diversitas in the Western
Pacific and Asia series 1, 373-383.
Pearson, L.D. and Derr, A.J. 1986. Seasonal patterns of lowland forest floor abundance in southern Peru.
Biotropica, 18, 244-256.
Wiwatwitaya, D. and Jaitrong, W. 2001. Identification guide to the ant genera of Khao Yai National Park.
Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. 110, (in Thai).
Yahya, B.E.B. 2000. The use of three insect groups as biological indicators in three ecohabitats of Sabah.
School of Science and Technology, University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia, 182.
Ⓒ ISERD76