Acromyrmex lundii

AntWiki: The Ants --- Online
Acromyrmex lundii
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Hymenoptera
Family: Formicidae
Subfamily: Myrmicinae
Tribe: Attini
Genus: Acromyrmex
Species: A. lundii
Binomial name
Acromyrmex lundii
(Guérin-Méneville, 1838)

Acromyrmex lundii casent0173797 profile 1.jpg

Acromyrmex lundii casent0173797 dorsal 1.jpg

Specimen labels

Subspecies
Synonyms

Acromyrmex lundii is a host species of the workerless inquiline Pseudoatta argentina.

Identification

Distribution

Latitudinal Distribution Pattern

Latitudinal Range: 1.426° to -34.92125°.

   
North
Temperate 		North
Subtropical 		Tropical South
Subtropical 		South
Temperate

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists

Neotropical Region: Argentina, Brazil (type locality), Paraguay, Uruguay.

Distribution based on AntMaps

AntMapLegend.png

Distribution based on AntWeb specimens

Check data from AntWeb

Countries Occupied

Number of countries occupied by this species based on AntWiki Regional Taxon Lists. In general, fewer countries occupied indicates a narrower range, while more countries indicates a more widespread species.
pChart

Estimated Abundance

Relative abundance based on number of AntMaps records per species (this species within the purple bar). Fewer records (to the left) indicates a less abundant/encountered species while more records (to the right) indicates more abundant/encountered species.
pChart

Biology

Explore-icon.png Explore Fungus Growing 
For additional details see Fungus growing ants.

A handful of ant species (approx. 275 out of the known 15,000 species) have developed the ability to cultivate fungus within their nests. In most species the fungus is used as the sole food source for the larvae and is an important resource for the adults as well. Additionally, in a limited number of cases, the fungus is used to construct part of the nest structure but is not as a food source.

These fungus-feeding species are limited to North and South America, extending from the pine barrens of New Jersey, United States, in the north (Trachymyrmex septentrionalis) to the cold deserts in Argentina in the south (several species of Acromyrmex). Species that use fungi in nest construction are known from Europe and Africa (a few species in the genera Crematogaster, Lasius).


The details of fungal cultivation are rich and complex. First, a wide variety of materials are used as substrate for fungus cultivating. The so-called lower genera include species that prefer dead vegetation, seeds, flowers, fruits, insect corpses, and feces, which are collected in the vicinity of their nests. The higher genera include non leaf-cutting species that collect mostly fallen leaflets, fruit, and flowers, as well as the leafcutters that collect fresh leaves from shrubs and trees. Second, while the majority of fungi that are farmed by fungus-feeding ants belong to the family Lepiotaceae, mostly the genera Leucoagaricus and Leucocoprinus, other fungi are also involved. Some species utilise fungi in the family Tricholomataceae while a few others cultivate yeast. The fungi used by the higher genera no longer produce spores. Their fungi produce nutritious and swollen hyphal tips (gongylidia) that grow in bundles called staphylae, to specifically feed the ants. Finally, colony size varies tremendously among these ants. Lower taxa mostly live in inconspicuous nests with 100–1000 individuals and relatively small fungus gardens. Higher taxa, in contrast, live in colonies made of 5–10 million ants that live and work within hundreds of interconnected fungus-bearing chambers in huge subterranean nests. Some colonies are so large, they can be seen from satellite photos, measuring up to 600 m3.

Based on these habits, and taking phylogenetic information into consideration, these ants can be divided into six biologically distinct agricultural systems (with a list of genera involved in each category):

Nest Construction

A limited number of species that use fungi in the construction of their nests.

Lower Agriculture

Practiced by species in the majority of fungus-feeding genera, including those thought to retain more primitive features, which cultivate a wide range of fungal species in the tribe Leucocoprineae.

Coral Fungus Agriculture

Practiced by species in the Apterostigma pilosum species-group, which cultivate fungi within the Pterulaceae.

Yeast Agriculture

Practiced by species within the Cyphomyrmex rimosus species-group, which cultivate a distinct clade of leucocoprineaceous fungi derived from the lower attine fungi.

Generalized Higher Agriculture

Practiced by species in several genera of non-leaf-cutting "higher attine" ants, which cultivate a distinct clade of leucocoprineaceous fungi separately derived from the lower attine fungi.

Leaf-Cutter Agriculture

A subdivision of higher attine agriculture practiced by species within several ecologically dominant genera, which cultivate a single highly derived species of higher attine fungus.

Note that the farming habits of Mycetagroicus (4 species) are unknown. Also, while species of Pseudoatta (2 species) are closely related to the fungus-feeding genus Acromyrmex, they are social parasites, living in the nests of their hosts and are not actively involved in fungus growing. ‎

Bruch 1928. Obrera de hormiga podadora, Acromyrmex lundii con una reina adoptiva de Pseudoatta argentina. (Siete veces aumentadas)

Römer and Roces (2015) carried out a laboratory study examining this ant's nesting behavior. They noted that it was already known that Acromyrmex lundi leaf-cutting ants:

. . . enlarge existing chambers only if they contain fungus; otherwise they excavate tunnels (Fröhle and Roces 2009). They appear to use their voluminous fungus as a template to adjust the size and shape of the nest chambers (Fröhle and Roces 2009). In addition, it was recently demonstrated that the presence of brood and fungus at a given site triggers the excavation of new nest chambers (Römer and Roces 2014). The brood of A. lundi was shown to be attractive to workers, which aggregate around these items and thereby increase local ant density (Römer and Roces 2014). This locally increased worker density was thought to be responsible for increased excavation activity at the site of brood placement, as compared to alternative sites without brood. The occurrence of brood at a site also led to a change in the shape of the excavated structure, which was round and chamber-like, as compared to a tunnel-like structure excavated at a site without brood (Römer and Roces 2014).

This suggests that the presence of in-nest stores can influence the internal architecture of a nest through a self-organized, likely worker aggregation based adjustment of digging activity. Their study tried to assess how the presence of nest contents (brood and fungus) influenced digging /nest-enlargement behavior in groups of workers placed in a tunnel structure versus a tunnel with a small chamber. They summarized their results as follows: Taken together, our results indicate that the adjustment of both nest size and internal architecture does not simply depend on the number of workers that inhabit a colony. The mechanisms underlying the determination of nest size are flexible and are affected by the available nest space and the presence of in-nest stores. They involve positive and negative feedback loops, such as worker aggregation around stored items and inhibition via the generated space, thus leading to a self-regulated onset and lessening of excavation. The extent of local worker density also influences the internal nest architecture, as ants create cavities when excavating in a concentrated manner, and tunnels when they are more dispersed. Another important mechanism by which ants dynamically adjust the size of their nests is the opportunistic deposition of excavated soil pellets at unused spaces, effectively downsizing their nest.

Barrera et al. (2015) studied the diversity of leaf cutting ants along a forest-edge-agriculture habitat gradient. Their study site, in Chaco Serrano of Central Argentina, had forest remnants of various sizes within an agriculture area with wheat, soy and maize. A. lundii was the moderately abundant (21% of the 162 Acromyrmex colonies sampled). This species was found in the forest interior but was much less abundant there than Acromyrmex crassispinus. Along the forest edge it was similar in abundance to Amoimyrmex striatus, with A. crassispinus also present but occurring at a slightly lower abundance. A few colonies of Acromyrmex heyeri and Amoimyrmex silvestrii were also found along the forest edge.

Association with Other Organisms

Explore-icon.png Explore: Show all Associate data or Search these data. See also a list of all data tables or learn how data is managed.
  • This species is a host for the diapriid wasp Bruchopria hexatoma (a parasite) in Argentina (Loiacono, 2013; Gonzalez et al., 2016).
  • This species is a host for the diapriid wasp Doliopria myrmecobia (a parasite) in Argentina (Loiacono, 2013; Gonzalez et al., 2016).
  • The ascomycetous yeast species Wickerhamomyces spegazzinii has been isolated from the fungus garden of this species (Masiulionis & Pagnocca, 2016).
  • This species is a host for the histerid beetle Euspilotus myrmecophilus (a myrmecophile) in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay (Lackner, 2014; Lackner & Arriagada, 2020).
  • This species is a host for the phorid fly Apocephalus luteihalteratus (a parasite) (phorid.net) (attacked).
  • This species is a host for the phorid fly Apocephalus rionegrensis (a parasite) (phorid.net) (attacked).
  • This species is a host for the phorid fly Apocephalus barbicauda (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode primary; direct transmission; transmission outside nest).
  • This species is a host for the phorid fly Apocephalus luteihalteratus (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode primary; direct transmission; transmission outside nest).
  • This species is a host for the phorid fly Apocephalus neivai (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode primary; direct transmission; transmission outside nest).
  • This species is a host for the phorid fly Myrmosicarius catharinensis (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode primary; direct transmission; transmission outside nest).
  • This species is a host for the phorid fly Myrmosicarius persecutor (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode primary; direct transmission; transmission outside nest).
  • This species is a host for the fungus Beauveria bassiana (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode primary; direct transmission; transmission within nest).
  • This species is a host for the fungus Beauveria bassiana (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode primary; direct transmission; transmission within nest).

Castes

Nomenclature

The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's Online Catalogue of the Ants of the World.

  • lundii. Myrmica lundii Guérin-Méneville, 1838: 206 (w.m.) BRAZIL (no state data).
    • Type-material: syntype worker(s), syntype male(s) (numbers not stated).
    • Type-locality: Brazil: (no further data), 1822-25 (Voyage La Coquille).
    • [Note: Kempf, 1972a: 13, incorrectly gives the type-locality as Argentina.]
    • Type-depository: unknown (perhaps MNHN).
    • [Note: according to Horn & Kahle, 1935: 99, Guérin’s Hymenoptera material was split between MNHN, MSNG, and ZSBS, but some are also present in NNML.]
    • Roger, 1863a: 201 (w.); Wheeler, G.C. 1949: 675 (l.).
    • Combination in Atta: Roger, 1863a: 200;
    • combination in Atta (Acromyrmex): Forel, 1885a: 356;
    • combination in Acromyrmex: Forel, 1913l: 237.
    • Status as species: Smith, F. 1858b: 131; Roger, 1863a: 200; Roger, 1863b: 35; Mayr, 1863: 433; Forel, 1885a: 356 (redescription); Emery, 1888c: 358; Emery, 1888e: 690; Dalla Torre, 1893: 153; von Jhering, 1894: 387; Forel, 1895b: 139; Emery, 1905c: 52; Emery, 1906c: 166; Forel, 1908c: 349; Forel, 1912e: 181; Forel, 1913l: 237; Bruch, 1914: 216; Gallardo, 1915: 16; Gallardo, 1916d: 330; Santschi, 1916e: 386; Bruch, 1917d: 431; Santschi, 1919f: 51; Bruch, 1921: 192; Emery, 1924d: 349; Santschi, 1925a: 384; Borgmeier, 1927c: 133; Kutter, 1932: 208; Kusnezov, 1953b: 338; Kusnezov, 1956: 34 (in key); Gonçalves, 1961: 150; Kempf, 1972a: 13; Zolessi & Abenante, 1977: 82; Zolessi, et al. 1988: 5; Cherrett & Cherrett, 1989: 51; Bolton, 1995b: 56; Wild, 2007b: 30.
    • Senior synonym of bonariensis: Gallardo, 1916d: 331; Gonçalves, 1961: 150; Kempf, 1972a: 13; Bolton, 1995b: 56.
    • Senior synonym of dubia: Gonçalves, 1961: 150; Kempf, 1972a: 13; Bolton, 1995b: 56.
    • Senior synonym of risii: Santschi, 1925a: 384; Gonçalves, 1961: 150; Kempf, 1972a: 13; Bolton, 1995b: 56.
    • Distribution: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay.
    • Current subspecies: nominal plus boliviensis, carli, decolor, parallelus.
  • bonariensis. Atta (Acromyrmex) pubescens var. bonariensis Emery, 1905c: 52 (w.) ARGENTINA (Buenos Aires).
    • Type-material: syntype workers (number not stated).
    • Type-locality: Argentina: Buenos Aires (no collector’s name), “and various other localities in Argentina”.
    • Type-depository: MSNG.
    • [Also noted as new by Emery, 1906c: 166.]
    • Combination in Acromyrmex: Bruch, 1914: 216.
    • Subspecies of lundii: Forel, 1912e: 181; Bruch, 1914: 216; Santschi, 1916e: 387; Emery, 1924d: 349; Santschi, 1925a: 385; Santschi, 1934c: 32; Weber, 1938b: 204.
    • Junior synonym of lundii: Gallardo, 1916d: 331; Gonçalves, 1961: 150; Kempf, 1972a: 13; Bolton, 1995b: 54.
  • dubia. Atta (Acromyrmex) laticeps var. dubia Forel, 1908c: 350 (w.) BRAZIL (São Paulo).
    • Type-material: syntype workers (number not stated).
    • Type-locality: Brazil: São Paulo (H. von Ihering).
    • Type-depositories: MHNG, MZSP.
    • Combination in Acromyrmex: Emery, 1924d: 349.
    • Subspecies of laticeps: Emery, 1924d: 349.
    • Subspecies of lundii: Santschi, 1925a: 385; Borgmeier, 1927c: 133.
    • Junior synonym of lundii: Gonçalves, 1961: 150; Kempf, 1972a: 13; Bolton, 1995b: 55.
  • risii. Atta (Acromyrmex) lundii var. risii Forel, 1908c: 350. (w.) ARGENTINA (Buenos Aires).
    • Type-material: syntype workers (number not stated).
    • Type-locality: Argentina: Buenos Aires (F. Ris).
    • Type-depository: MHNG.
    • Combination in Acromyrmex: Forel, 1913l: 237.
    • Subspecies of lundii: Forel, 1913l: 237; Bruch, 1914: 216; Gallardo, 1916d: 333; Santschi, 1916e: 386 (in key); Emery, 1924d: 349.
    • Junior synonym of lundii: Santschi, 1925a: 384; Gonçalves, 1961: 150; Kempf, 1972a: 13; Bolton, 1995b: 56.

Description

Karyotype

Explore-icon.png Explore: Show all Karyotype data or Search these data. See also a list of all data tables or learn how data is managed.
  • 2n = 38, karyotype = 10M + 14SM + 10ST + 4A (Brazil) (de Castro et al., 2020).

References

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

  • Bollazzi, M., J. Kronenbitter and F. Roce. 2008. Soil Temperature, Digging Behaviour, and the Adaptive Value of Nest Depth in South American Species of Acromyrmex Leaf-Cutting Ants. Oecologia 158(1):165-175
  • Bonetto A. A. 1959. Las hormigas "cortadoras" de la Provincia de Santa Fé (generos: Atta y Acromyrmex). Santa Fé, Argentina: Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (Dirección General de Recurzos Naturales), 79 pp.
  • Bruch C. 1914. Catálogo sistemático de los formícidos argentinos. Revista del Museo de La Plata 19: 211-234.
  • Cantarelli, E.B., E.C. Costa, L.d Silva Oliveira and E.R. Perrando. 2005. EFEITO DE DIFERENTES DOSES DO FORMICIDA "CITROMAX" NO CONTROLE DE Acromyrmex lundi check for this species in other resources (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE). Ciência Florestal, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2005, pp. 249-253.
  • Cuezzo, F. 1998. Formicidae. Chapter 42 in Morrone J.J., and S. Coscaron (dirs) Biodiversidad de artropodos argentinos: una perspectiva biotaxonomica Ediciones Sur, La Plata. Pages 452-462.
  • Culebra Mason S., C. Sgarbi, J. Chila Covachina, J. M. Pena, N. Dubrovsky Berensztein, C. Margaria, and M. Ricci. 2017. Acromyrmex Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae): species distribution patterns in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Rev. Mus. Argentino Cienc. Nat. 19(2) 185-199.
  • Diehl, E., F.Sacchett and E.Z.de Albuquerque. 2005. Riqueza de formigas de solo na praia da Pedreira, Parque Estadual de Itapuã, Viamão, RS, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 49(4): 552-556
  • Diehl-Fleig E. 2014. Termites and Ants from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Sociobiology (in Press).
  • Farji Brener A. G., and A. Ruggiero. 1994. Leaf-cutting ants (Atta and Acromyrmex) inhabiting Argentina: patterns in species richness and geographical range sizes. Journal of Biogeography 21(4): 391-399.
  • Fernández, F. and S. Sendoya. 2004. Lista de las hormigas neotropicales. Biota Colombiana Volume 5, Number 1.
  • Fleck M. D., E. Bisognin Cantarelli, and F. Granzotto. 2015. Register of new species of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Rio Grande do Sul state. Ciencia Florestal, Santa Maria 25(2): 491-499.
  • Fonseca, R.C. and E. Diehl. 2004. Riqueze de formigas (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) epigeicas em povoamentos de Eucalyptus spp. (Myrtaceae) de diferentes idades no Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 48(1):95-100.
  • Forel A. 1908. Ameisen aus Sao Paulo (Brasilien), Paraguay etc. gesammelt von Prof. Herm. v. Ihering, Dr. Lutz, Dr. Fiebrig, etc. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 58: 340-418.
  • Forel A. 1912. Formicides néotropiques. Part II. 3me sous-famille Myrmicinae Lep. (Attini, Dacetii, Cryptocerini). Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique. 19: 179-209.
  • Forel A. 1913. Fourmis d'Argentine, du Brésil, du Guatémala & de Cuba reçues de M. M. Bruch, Prof. v. Ihering, Mlle Baez, M. Peper et M. Rovereto. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles. 49: 203-250.
  • Fowler H. G. 1985. Leaf-cutting ants of the genera Atta and Acromyrmex of Paraguay (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) Dtsch. Ent. Z., N. F. 32(1-3): 19-34.
  • Gallardo A. 1916. Notes systématiques et éthologiques sur les fourmis attines de la République Argentine. Anales del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Buenos Aires 28: 317-344.
  • Gonçalves C. R. 1961. O genero Acromyrmex no Brasil (Hym. Formicidae). Stud. Entomol. 4: 113-180.
  • Kempf, W.W. 1972. Catalago abreviado das formigas da regiao Neotropical (Hym. Formicidae) Studia Entomologica 15(1-4).
  • Klingenberg, C. and C.R.F. Brandao. 2005. The type specimens of fungus growing ants, Attini (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Myrmicinae) deposited in the Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Papeis Avulsos de Zoologia 45(4):41-50
  • Kusnezov N. 1956. Claves para la identificación de las hormigas de la fauna argentina. Idia 104-105: 1-56.
  • Kusnezov N. 1978. Hormigas argentinas: clave para su identificación. Miscelánea. Instituto Miguel Lillo 61:1-147 + 28 pl.
  • Loiacono M. S., C. B. Margaria, and D. A. Aquino. 2013. Diapriinae wasps (Hymenoptera: Diaprioidea: Diapriidae) associated with ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Argentina. Psyche http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/320590
  • Lutinski J. A., B. C. Lopes, and A. B. B.de Morais. 2013. Diversidade de formigas urbanas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de dez cidades do sul do Brasil. Biota Neotrop. 13(3): 332-342.
  • Osorio Rosado J. L, M. G. de Goncalves, W. Drose, E. J. Ely e Silva, R. F. Kruger, and A. Enimar Loeck. 2013. Effect of climatic variables and vine crops on the epigeic ant fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Campanha region, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. J Insect Conserv 17: 1113-1123.
  • Pignalberi C. T. 1961. Contribución al conocimiento de los formícidos de la provincia de Santa Fé. Pp. 165-173 in: Comisión Investigación Científica; Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (Argentina) 1961. Actas y trabajos del primer Congreso Sudamericano de Zoología (La Plata, 12-24 octubre 1959). Tomo III. Buenos Aires: Librart, 276 pp.
  • Santoandre S., J. Filloy, G. A. Zurita, and M. I. Bellocq. 2019. Ant taxonomic and functional diversity show differential response to plantation age in two contrasting biomes. Forest Ecology and Management 437: 304-313.
  • Santschi F. 1916. Formicides sudaméricains nouveaux ou peu connus. Physis (Buenos Aires). 2: 365-399.
  • Santschi F. 1925. Revision du genre Acromyrmex Mayr. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 31: 355-398.
  • Solomon S. E., C. Rabeling, J. Sosa-Calvo, C. Lopes, A. Rodrigues, H. L. Vasconcelos, M. Bacci, U. G. Mueller, and T. R. Schultz. 2019. The molecular phylogenetics of Trachymyrmex Forel ants and their fungal cultivars provide insights into the origin and coevolutionary history of ‘higher-attine’ ant agriculture. Systematic Entomology 44: 939–956.
  • Valdes-Rodriguez S., P. Chacon de Ulloa, and I. Armbrecht. 2014. Soil ant species in Gorgona Island, Colombian Pacific. Rev. Biol. Trop. 62 (1): 265-276.
  • Vittar, F. 2008. Hormigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de la Mesopotamia Argentina. INSUGEO Miscelania 17(2):447-466
  • Vittar, F., and F. Cuezzo. "Hormigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de la provincia de Santa Fe, Argentina." Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina (versión On-line ISSN 1851-7471) 67, no. 1-2 (2008).
  • Wild, A. L. "A catalogue of the ants of Paraguay (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)." Zootaxa 1622 (2007): 1-55.
  • Zolessi L. C. de; Y. P. de Abenante, and M. E. Philippi. 1989. Catálogo sistemático de las especies de Formícidos del Uruguay (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Montevideo: ORCYT Unesco, 40 + ix pp.
  • de Zolessi, L.C., Y.P. de Abenante and M.E. Philippi. 1987. Lista sistemática de las especies de formícidos del Uruguay. Comunicaciones Zoologicas del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo 11(165):1-9
  • de Zolessi, L.C., Y.P. de Abenante and M.E. Phillipi. 1989. Catalago Systematico de las Especies de Formicidos del Uruguay (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Oficina Regional de Ciencia y Technologia de la Unesco para America Latina y el Caribe- ORCYT. Montevideo, Uruguay
Retrieved from "https://antwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Acromyrmex_lundii&oldid=720191"