## 1 Introduction
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**References** & **Study Type** & **Locality** & **Latitude** & **Area (km2)** & **Natives** & **Exotics** & **Total** \\ \hline
**Africa (7)** & & & & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. 2018 [62] & ecological & Abidjan, Ivory & & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. 2018 [62] & survey & Coast & 5.3 & 422 & 170 & 6 & 176 \\ [PERSON] et al. 2016 [63] & ecological & Abidjan, Ivory & & & & & \\ \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON] et al. 2019 [64]} & survey & Coast & 5.3 & 422 & 83 & 8 & 91 \\  & checklist & Lomé (Togo) & 6.1 & 99.1 & 41 & 2 & 43 \\ [PERSON] et al. 2017 [65] & ecological & Tangier, Morocco & 35.76 & 116 & 30 & 8 & 38 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON] 1958 [66]} & \multirow{2}{*}{checklist} & Rabat, Kenitra & \multirow{2}{*}{905 (multiple cities included)} & \multirow{2}{*}{5 ***} & \multirow{2}{*}{11 ***} & \multirow{2}{*}{16 ***} \\  & & and Tangier, Morocco & & & & & \\ [PERSON] 1958 [66] & checklist & and Tangier, Morocco & 34.3 to 35.8 & cities & 5 *** & 11 *** & 16 *** \\ \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON] 1974 [67]} & ecological & \multirow{2}{*}{Kenitra, Morocco} & \multirow{2}{*}{34.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{112} & \multirow{2}{*}{13} & \multirow{2}{*}{0} & \multirow{2}{*}{13} \\  & & & & & & \\ [PERSON] and & ecological & Las Palmas, & & & & & \\ [PERSON] 2014 [68] & survey & Canary Islands & 28.2 & 100.6 & 6 & 6 & 12 \\ \hline
**Asia (42)** & & & & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. 2001 [69] & checklist & Bogor, Java, & & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. 2001 [69] & checklist & Indonesia & \(-\)6.6 & 118.5 & 202 & 11 & 213 \\ This study & checklist & Macao, SAR, & & & & & \\  & & China & & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. 2017 [61] & checklist & Macao, SAR, & & & & & \\  & & China & & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. 2008 [70] & ecological & Bogor, West Java, & & & & & \\ [PERSON] 2005a,b and & ecological & & & & & & \\
2014 [71; 72; 73] & survey ** & Tokyo, Japan & 35.7 & 2194.1 & 54 & 0 & 54 \\ Matsumura and Yamane & ecological & Kagoshima City, & & & & & \\
2012 [74] & survey & Japan & 31.6 & 547.6 & 48 & 3 & 51 \\ [PERSON] et al. 2019 [75] & ecological & Taichung City, & & & & & \\  & survey & Taiwan & & & & \\ [PERSON] 1998 [76] & checklist & Osaka City, & & & & & \\  & & Japan & & & & & \\ [PERSON] and Corlett 2012 [77] & ecological & Singapore & 1.3 & 728.3 & 38 & 4 & 42 \\ [PERSON] et al. 2012 [78] & checklist & Isa City, Japan & 32.1 & 392.4 & 40 & 0 & 40 \\ Iwata, Eguchi and & ecological & Kagoshima City, & & & & & \\ [PERSON] 2005 [79] & survey & Japan & 31.6 & 547.6 & 37 & 2 & 39 \\ [PERSON] 2004 [80] & ecological & Chiba, Japan & 35.6 & 271.8 & 37 & 1 & 38 \\  & ecological & Fukuoka City, & & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. 2014a [81] & survey & Japan & 33.6 & 343.4 & 35 & 3 & 38 \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] & ecological & Kagoshima & & & & & \\
2012 [74] & survey & City, Japan & 31.6 & 547.6 & 36 & 2 & 38 \\ [PERSON] et al. 2012 [82] & ecological & Guangzhou, China & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Ecological and taxonomic studies that produced ant species richness values for a city. Studies are classified by a function of their study region and ranked by the function of the overall species richness retrieved. Studies not providing a complete species list or without enough information on habitats sampled were not included. (*) Complete list of species not provided in article, (**) a combination of 3 articles by the same author and in the same city, and (***), richness value is a combination of more than one urban region.