Numerous species of ants have habitat preferences and respond quickly to disturbances to their environment; making them valuable for habitat monitoring. However, the effects of various environmental factors on ant communities remain uncertain (Wang et

1
Results ? NMS and ANCOVA both revealed three
distinct ant comunities (pasture, prairie, and
"forests") between the four habitat types
based on species composition and mean abundance
per habitat type (Figures 3 and 4). ? Principal
component analysis partitioned the 12
environmental variables into four axes with
eigenvalues gt 1 (Table 1). ? Axis 1 divides the
sites into two types (open and forests), while
Axis 2 separates pasture from prairie (Figure
5). ? Multiple regression models using the four
significant principal components revealed that
total species richness was significantly
affected by variation in the first two PCA axes.
Forested sites supported approximately nine more
species of ants than prairie remnants, and 21
more than pastures (p.0001) (Table 2). ?
Comparisons of functional group abundance between
the four habitat types with multiple regressions
are presented in Table 2 and Figure 6.
Introduction Numerous species of ants have
habitat preferences and respond quickly to
disturbances to their environment making them
valuable for habitat monitoring. However, the
effects of various environmental factors on ant
communities remain uncertain (Wang et al. 2001
Env. Ent. 30 439-448). This study investigates
the relationship of ant community composition to
various habitat characteristics by comparing ant
communities and several environmental variables
across four habitat types in the Black Belt
Prairie and Flatwoods physiographic regions of
Mississippi. The four habitat types include
prairie, pasture, and upland forests in the Black
Belt region and forests in the Flatwoods region
(Figure 1).
A. Cold Climate Specialists 1. Stenamma
meridionale Smith, 2. Prenolepis imparis (Say).
B. Cryptic species 3. Pyramica ornata (Mayr), 4.
Hypoponera inexorata (Wheeler). C. Dominant
Dolichoderinae 5. Forelius mccooki (McCook), 6.
Tapinoma sessile (Say).
MethMethods Three sites were chosen for each of
the four habitat types (Figure 2). At each site
three circular plots, with a diameter of 25m
each, were established. Six pitfall traps were
run in each plot and checked twice a month from
June to October 2003. Baits (tuna fish or
shortbread cookie) were placed in each plot and
all attracted ants were collected after 30
minutes. During this period all other foraging or
nesting ants detected in each plot were hand
collected. Baiting and hand collecting were done
from June to October 2003 and from April to
December 2004. Soil and litter samples (?3.75 L
per sample) were collected once a month from each
forest plot in 2003 and twice a month in 2004,
then placed in a Berlese funnels for 5-7 days for
specimen extraction. All ant specimens were
identified to species and assigned to one of six
functional groups based on Andersen (1997. Jour.
Biogeography 24 433-460).
D. Generalized Myrmicinae 7. Solenopsis richteri
Forel, 8. Crematogaster lineolata (Say). E.
Opportunists 9. Pheidole pilifera (Roger), 10.
Polyergus lucidus longicornis Smith. F.
Subordinate Camponotini 11. Camponotus snellingi
Bolton, 12. Camponotus mississippiensis Smith.
Conclusions The two forests types (oak-hickory
and Flatwoods) supported a different ant
community and higher diversity than prairie or
pasture habitats. No significant differences were
found in species composition or abundance between
the two forest types. As a result of the
effects of grazing and associated land management
practices (as indicated by higher soil organic
matter and less herbaceous diversity and height),
ant diversity was significantly lowered in
pastures, although the abundance of generalized
Myrmicinae (ex. Solenopsis spp.) was increased.
The generalized Myrmicinae, which did not
significantly respond to any of the measured
environmental variables, were the most abundant
functional group in the pastures. This suggests
that the generalized Myrmicinae were reacting to
other variables. The ant community in the
prairie differed from and was more diverse than
that of the pastures due to several environmental
variables including higher sand content,
herbaceous diversity and herbaceous height.