Nylanderia fulva

Kumar et al. (2015) - The tawny crazy ant, Nylanderia fulva is invading the southern United States (Gotzek et al. 2012). Its occurrence in the United States (US) was first documented in Houston in 2002 (Meyers and Gold 2008). It may have arrived in Florida earlier (Klotz et al. 1995; Deyrup et al. 2000), but collections of the very similar Nylanderia pubens from Florida dating back to the 1950s (Trager 1984) prevent an accurate identification of early pest populations. At present, this species occurs in Texas, Florida, southern Mississippi (MacGown and Layton 2010) and southern Louisiana (Hooper-Bui et al. 2010; Fig. 1). Introduction of N. fulva in Colombia caused extensive ecological and agricultural damage (Zenner de Polania 1990). In the Southern United States, N. fulva displaces red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), and regionally distributed native species, thereby reducing both biological and functional diversity (LeBrun et al. 2013). Nylanderia fulva can also transport pathogens of plants, humans, and other animals (McDonald 2012). Nests within populations contain multiple queens (Zenner de Polania 1990). Interconnected nests of these ants form extraordinarily dense populations that greatly exceed the combined densities of all ants in adjacent uninvaded assemblages (LeBrun et al. 2013). They feed on small insects and vertebrates, and honeydew secreted by aphids (Zenner de Polania and Bola~nos 1985). They invade people’s homes, nest in crawl spaces and walls, and damage electrical equipment resulting in millions of dollars of losses (Blackwell 2014). Populations spread about 200 m per year as a result of nest fission at the invasion front (Meyers and Gold 2008). Female reproductives of N. fulva have not been observed to engage in alate flights, so long-distance dispersal occurs largely as a result of human transport of nesting ants.

Identification
Good luck! As per Gotzek et al (2012), the genus Nylanderia has a long history of taxonomic uncertainty in North America largely due to a lack of distinctive morphological characters in the worker caste. A recent phylogeny placed this species within a clade of mostly undescribed species of South American and Caribbean crazy ants.

Identification Keys including this Taxon

 * Key to Nearctic Nylanderia workers
 * Key to Nearctic Nylanderia males

Distribution
Known from numerous locations throughout the neotropics, and beyond, but identification of this and similar Nylanderia suggest published accounts about this species are potentially suspect.

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Nearctic Region: Canada, United States. Neotropical Region: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Suriname, Uruguay.



Biology
The following text and map are from Gotzek et al. (2012). References that were indicated but removed from the text are stated in the original publication:

There has been widespread misidentification of Nylanderia fulva. Within museum collections, misidentifications are common given the morphological similarities of the workers within the genus overall, as well as because of uncertainties regarding species boundaries.

Using a number of determination methods, it has been shown that this is the species that has experienced a population explosion in and around Houston, Texas that began in 2002 (Rasberry Ant).

Since its detection in Harris County, Texas, the new invasive has rapidly expanded its range and is now found in 21 counties in southeast Texas and has recently been discovered from southwestern Mississippi and Louisiana (see Figure).

Figure 1. Reported distribution of the Rasberry Crazy Ant in the United States (in blue). The distribution of Nylanderia cf. pubens in Florida is given in orange, but we suspect that these may prove to be N. fulva. Counties highlighted with solid colors indicate verified occurrences, whereas hatched counties are unconfirmed reports. Red dots indicate collection sites for samples used in this study. The actual distribution of N. fulva in the United States is most likely to be more widespread. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0045314.g001

Given the uncertainty of workerbased identifications of N. fulva and N. pubens most publications that involve either of these species are suspect; they may not involve the species listed in the publication, including the possibility that they are neither N. fulva nor N. pubens and are an entirely different Nylanderia species. It appears at this time that N. pubens is restricted to the Caribbean region. This species has been reported to be relatively to be relatively common in southern Florida in the 1950’s –1970’s, where it was also most recently found in 1994 (M. Deyrup, pers. comm. to JSL). It is not known whether these populations still persist today. Since we show that samples from northern Florida initially considered to be N. cf. pubens are actually N. fulva and given the invasive nature of N. fulva, we hypothesize that most or even all alleged occurrences of N. pubens in Florida are misidentified N. fulva. This would not be surprising, since the distribution is solely based on worker identifications (D. Oi, pers. comm. to DG). We also suspect that N. pubens may not have good invasive capabilities compared to N. fulva, given the currently rapidly expanding distribution of N. fulva in the United States and lack of N. pubens in our samples from northern Florida. It will require much better sampling of molecular data or male samples from throughout Florida to test our hypothesis. Currently, the Caribbean is likely the only place where N. fulva and N. pubens are sympatric and therefore the only region where identifications of workers will be difficult. If we are correct concerning the distribution and inability of N. pubens to become a pest, then the population explosions attributed to N. pubens that plagued the Caribbean from 19th century Bermuda to the recent outbreak on St. Croix and in southern Florida may very well have been N. fulva instead of N. pubens. Nylanderia fulva is known to be an invasive ant, most recently from Colombia where an outbreak occurred after this species was apparently introduced to control leafcutter ants and venomous snakes.

Therefore outbreaks may be common in N. fulva and should be expected in all inhabited areas, at least in the putative invasive part of its range. The current reported distribution of N. fulva in the United States is still patchy, but the pattern suggests that it will be able to invade the entire Gulf Coast, if it has not already done so. To accurately predict its potential range will require more detailed descriptions of its ecology, natural history, and distribution in its native range which can then be used to inform predictive environmental niche modeling. However, the native range of N. fulva must first be identified and, ideally, the source population(s) of the invasive populations must also be known. While this information is still lacking, it is highly likely that N. fulva is native to South America, probably southern South America (the type locality is in Brazil). Like other notorious invasive ants, e.g., Solenopsis invicta or Linepithema humile, it is possible that N. fulva could be yet another ant from the greater Parana drainage that has become invasive elsewhere. Detailed phylogeographic and population genetic studies based on broad and extensive sampling across the entire range of the species will help address these issues and provide the basis for effective management of N. fulva in North America, for example through the introduction of co-evolved biological control agents.

Research can now focus on this species’ population dynamics, ecology, natural history, and identification of its native range to better understand the causes and consequences of such rapid population growth. This endeavor would not have been possible without the collection-based resources and taxonomic expertise present in natural history museums, underscoring their value for both basic and applied research.

Nomenclature

 *  fulva. Prenolepis fulva Mayr, 1862: 698 (w.q.) BRAZIL. Forel, 1891b: 94 (m.); Forel, 1912i: 67 (m.). Combination in Pr. (Nylanderia): Forel, 1908b: 67; in Paratrechina (Nylanderia): Emery, 1925b: 222; in Nylanderia: Kempf, 1972a: 166; in Paratrechina: Snelling, R.R. & Hunt, 1976: 122; in Nylanderia: LaPolla, Brady & Shattuck, 2010a: 127. Senior synonym of fumata: Wild, 2007b: 45. See also: Fernández, 2000: 146; Fox, et al. 2010: 795. Current subspecies: nominal plus biolleyi, cubana, fumatipennis, incisa, longiscapa, nesiotis.
 * fumata. Prenolepis fulva var. fumata Forel, 1909a: 264 (w.) PARAGUAY. Forel, 1912i: 67 (q.). Combination in Pr. (Nylanderia): Forel, 1913l: 246; in Paratrechina (Nylanderia): Emery, 1925b: 222; in Nylanderia: Kempf, 1972a: 166; in Paratrechina: Brandão, 1991: 366; in Nylanderia: LaPolla, Brady & Shattuck, 2010a: 127. Junior synonym of fulva: Wild, 2007b: 45.

Worker
Lange: 3.1 – 3.5mm. Gelbbraun, glanzend, Mandibeln, Geissel, Beine und besonders die Gelenke der Beine und die Tarsen heller. Mandibeln langsgestreift. Clypeus fast glatt, vorne nicht ausgerandet. Kopf seicht und zerstreut runzlig punctirt. Thorax fein runzlig punctirt, ebenso der Hinterleib, Scheibe des ersteren fast glatt. Schuppe oben abgerundet.

Queen
Lange: 6mm. Rothbraun, Gelenke der Beine und Tarsen gelb. Anliegende Pubescenz am Hinterleibe reichlich. Clypeus glanzend, fast glatt. Kopf, Thorax und Hinterleib fein runzlig punctirt. Schuppe oben ausgerandet.

Type Material
Rio Janeiro (Novara).