Seasonal Effects of Abiotic Factors and Nutrient Sources on the Feeding Activity of the Harvester Ant Species Messor semirufus (André, 1883)

Year 2024, , 344 - 362, 31.12.2024

Ebru Sultan Kaya Yılmaz Çamlıtepe

https://doi.org/10.34186/klujes.1590367

Abstract

Harvester ants are species of ants that survive by collecting seeds. In this study, we planned to examine seasonal effects of abiotic factors and nutrient sources on the feeding activity of the harvester ant species Messor semirufus (André, 1883). Activation rhythms and feeding regimes were observed for M. semirufus workers in three seasons, spring, summer and autumn, for one year. Abiotic factor measurements were made every month and the recorded values were recorded in the follow-up tables. It was determined which plant seeds M. semirufus workers preferred from the plants naturally growing in the observed nest habitat. In addition, different food seeds that are not naturally found in the nest habitat of M. semirufus were placed near the nest and seed preferences among these were observed and noted. Activation of M. semirufus workers was at its maximum level when the soil temperature reached 30°C. Two plant families that M. semirufus prefers the most in the natural environment are the Poaceae (Grains) and Asteraceae (Daisy) seeds. On the other hand, in experimental studies on seed preferences, 12 types of seeds with different nutritional values, separate from the plants in the natural environment, were left around the M. semirufus nest. Of these, wheat, which contains 61% carbohydrates, was the most preferred seed by workers. The workers' second choice was flaxseed, which contains more oil. The later preferred types are oat, spinach seed, sesame, millet, chickpea seeds. Safflower, sunflower, rapeseed, hemp and broad bean are among the seeds that are not preferred.

Keywords

Harvester ants, seasonal activity, seed preference, nutrient source, abiotic factors

Ethical Statement

I hereby declare that I have created this article in accordance with academic and scientific ethical rules, stating the information I have obtained as a result of the research I have conducted during my article studies, citing the sources I have personally found and used for this study.

Abiyotik Faktörlerin ve Besin Kaynaklarının Hasatçı Karınca Messor semirufus (André, 1883)’un Beslenme Aktivitesi Üzerindeki Mevsimsel Etkileri

Abstract

Hasatçı karıncalar tohum toplayarak yaşamlarını sürdüren karınca türleridir. Bu çalışmada abiyotik faktörlerin ve besin kaynaklarının bir hasatçı karınca türü olan Messor semirufus (André, 1883)’un beslenme aktivitesi üzerindeki mevsimsel etkileri incelenmiştir. Bir yıl boyunca M. semirufus için ilkbahar, yaz ve sonbahar aylarında olmak üzere 3 mevsim aktivasyon ritimleri ve beslenme rejimleri gözlemlenmiştir. Her ay abiyotik faktör ölçümleri yapılarak kaydedilen değerler takip tablolarına kaydedilmiştir. Gözlem yapılan yuva habitatında doğal olarak yetişen bitkilerden, M. semirufus türünün hangi bitki tohumlarını tercih ettiği saptanmıştır. Ayrıca, M. semirufus türünün yuva habitatında doğal olarak bulunmayan farklı besin tohumları da yuva yakınına konularak bunlar arasından tohum tercihleri gözlenerek not edilmiştir. M. semirufus işçilerinin toprak sıcaklığı 30°C’yi bulduğunda aktivasyonlarının maksimum düzeyde olduğu gözlenmiştir. M. semirufus’un doğal ortamda en çok tercih ettiği iki familya Poaceae (buğdaygiller) ve Asteraceae (papatyagiller) familyalarıdır. Tohum tercihlerine yönelik deneysel çalışmalarda, M. semirufus yuvası çevresine doğal ortamdaki bitkilerden ayrı, farklı besin değerlerinde 12 çeşit tohum bırakılmıştır. Bunlardan % 61 oranında karbonhidrat içeren buğday en çok tercih edilen olmuştur. İkinci sırada içeriği daha çok yağ olan keten tohumu olmuştur. Yulaf, ıspanak tohumu, susam, darı, nohut tohumları öncelikli türlerden sonra yuvaya taşınılan türlerdendir. Aspir, ayçiçeği, kolza, kenevir ve bakla ise tercih edilmeyen tohumlardandır.

Keywords

Hasatçı karıncalar, mevsimsel aktivite, tohum tercihi, besin kaynağı, abiyotik faktörler.

References

• Aktaç, N., Çamlitepe, Y., & Dane, F. (1990). Hasatçı Karıncaların (Messor oertzeni ve M. semirufus) Yuva Yapıları ve Tohum Depoları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. X.Ulusal Biyoloji Kongresi, Cumhuriyet Univ, 18-20 Temmuz, Sivas.
• Artik, N., Yemiş, O. (2006). Glukosinolatlar ve İnsan Sağlığı Açısından Önemi. Türkiye 9. Gıda Kongresi 24-26 Mayıs 2006, Bolu. Ankara Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Gıda Müh., Dışkapı, Ankara.
• Bolton B. (2023). An online catalog of the ants of the world. http://antcat.org (Accessed 20 November 2025).
• Brown, J. H., Davıdson, D. W., & Reıchman, O. J. (1979a). An experimental study of competition between seed-eating desert rodents and ants. American Zoologist, 19(4): 1129-43.
• Brown, J. H., Reıchman, O. J., & Davıdson D. W. (1979b). Granivory in desert ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 10: 201-227.
• Davidson, D. W., Inouye, R. S., & Brown, J. H. (1984). Granivory in a desert ecosystem: experimental evidence for indirect facilitation of ants by rodents. Ecology, 65(6):1780-86.
• De Almeida T, Blight O, Mesléard F, Bulot A, Provost E., & Dutoit T (2020). Harvester ants as ecological engineers for Mediterranean grassland restoration: Impacts on soil and vegetation. Biological Conservation 245: 108547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108547.
• De Vita, J. (1979). Mechanisms of interference and foraging among colonies of the harvesting ant Pogonomyrmex californicus in the Mojave Desert. Ecology, 60(4): 729-737.
• Elwood S., Mcluskey E.S. (1963). Rhythms and Clocks ın Harvester and Argentıne Ants, Physiol.Zool., 36, 273-292.
• Hahn, M., Maschwitz, U. (1985). Foraging strategies and recruitment behaviour in the European harvester ant Messor rufitarsis. Oecologia, 68(1): 45-51.
• Hölldobler, B. (1976). Recruitment behavior, home range orientation and territoriality in harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 1(1): 3-44.
• Hölldobler, B., Möglıch, M. (1980). The foraging system of Pheidole militicida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux, 27 (3): 237-264.
• Hunt J.H. (1974). Temporal Activity Patterns in Two Competing Ant Species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), Journal of Entomology, 81 237-242.
• Nondillo A, Ferrari L, Lerin S, Bueno Oc., & Bottona M (2014). Foraging activity and seasonal food preference of Linepithema micans (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), a species associated with the spread of Eurhizococcus brasiliensis (Hemiptera: Margarodidae). J Econ Entomol;107(4):1385-91.
• Retena J., Cerda X. (2000). Patterns of diversity and composition of Mediterranean ground ant communities tracking spatial and temporal variability in the thermal environment, Oecologia, 123, 436–444.
• Sanches A.M., Azcarate F.M., & Peco B. (2005). Effects of Harvester Ants on Seed Availability and Diapersal of Lavandula stoeshas subsp. Pedunculata in Mediterranean Grassland- Scrubland Mosaic, Plant Ecology, 185, 49–56.
• Sanders C.J. (1972). Seasonal and Daily Activity Patterns of Carpenter Ants (Camponotus spp.) In Northwestern Ontono (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), The Canadian Entomol., 104, 1681-1687.
• Sharma V.J., Lone S.R., Goel A., & Chandrashekaran M.K. (2004). Circadian Consequences of social Organization in the ant species Camponotus compresus, Naturwissenschaften, 91, 386-390.
• Silvestre M, Aguilar A, Seoane J., & Azcárate FM. (2019). Responses of seed size, ant worker size, and seed removal rate to elevation in Mediterranean grasslands. Oecologia. 2019 Mar;189(3):781-793.
• Sudd J.H., Franks N.R. (1987). The Behavioural Ecology of Ants. Blackie. Glasgow, 3, 206- 216.
• Willott, S.J., S. G. Compton, L., & D. Incoll (2000). Foraging, Food Selection and Worker Size in the Seed Harvesting Ant Messor bouvieri. Oecologia, Vol. 125, No. 1, pp. 35-44
• Zeleny Y. (1971). Criteria of Wheat Quality. In: Wheat Chemistry and Technology. Y. Pomeranz, ed. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem.: StA.A.C.C. İncorporated St. Paul Minnesota, 821 S