How ant communities are shaped by vacant land management strategies, landscape context, and a legacy of industrialization Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Alexander Marcus Tyrpak Graduate Program in Entomology The Ohio State University 2020 Thesis Committee Dr. Mary Gardiner, Advisor Dr. Rachelle Adams Dr. Larry Phelan Dr. Joseph Raczkowski Copyrighted by Alexander Marcus Tyrpak 2020 Abstract Many cities around the world have lost population due to economic decline and deindustrialization which has led to an overabundance of infrastructure. These abandoned structures are eventually torn down, resulting in the formation of vacant lots which are planted with turfgrass. Vacant lots require regular mowing, which is a significant expense for cities with a shrinking tax base. Vacant land has the potential to support many arthropod groups yet mowing could be limiting its conservation value. The first goal of this research was to determine if reducing the mowing frequency could improve the conservation value of vacant land by creating urban meadows. Second, I examined if converting vacant lots into pocket prairies planted with native wildflowers would improve their conservation value, in comparison to Metropark forests which are the principal conservation habitat example in Cleveland, Ohio. Ants were chosen as the study organism due to their abundance and importance as biological indicators. Landscape context was evaluated in both goals, and soil contamination and vegetation factors were evaluated between vacant lots and pocket prairies. Reducing the mowing frequency and establishing pocket prairies did not significantly alter ant species and functional richness, or composition, and Metropark forests had a lower ant species and function richness and a different species composition than pocket prairies. However, ant species richness was negatively correlated with increasing impervious surface area, and local soil contamination was negatively correlated with ant body size. These results illustrate that local soil contamination and impervious surface area in the surrounding landscape can potentially negatively affect ant colonization and functional diversity. Urban meadows, pocket ii prairies, and vacant lots all harbored relatively similar communities of ants, however, soil contamination and impervious surfaces in the surrounding landscape could be detrimental for vacant land conservation practices. iii Acknowledgements Dr. Kayla Perry who mentored me and acted as a co-advisor and helped me along the way with learning about ants, field work, statistics, and writing up my thesis. My advisor Dr. Mary Gardiner for always providing encouragement and guidance throughout my masters and giving me the opportunity to study one of my favorite urban insects, ants. Dr. Joe Raczkowski for helping me to identify the difficult ants and for his expertise on ant biology. Dr. Larry Phelan for asking all the tough questions and allowing me to use the soil data collected by the Phelan Lab in my research. Dr. Rachelle Adams for providing a lot of advice and feedback on my project, giving out guidance on ant biology and behavior, especially pertaining to my collection methods and interpretation of data. Emily Sypolt and Denisha Parker for their support and guidance throughout my degree, especially with field work. Chris Riley for helping with statistics. Yvan Delgado de la flor for helping with statistics and for providing the ants that he collected in 2015 and 2016. The Cleveland Land Bank for allowing us to lease and do research on the parcels of vacant land used in this study, as well as the Cleveland Metroparks for allowing us to sample at several of their parks. Ellen Dunkle, Anthony Ursetti, Michael Rogers, Caleb Whitney, Jena Copley, Sierra Weir, Amanda Han, Kelly Luebbering, Ava Wilson, Meagan Carey, Emily Goodwin, Mary Roth, and Molly Frabotta for their assistance with fieldwork and laboratory tasks related to my research. This research was supported in part by the Division of Environmental Biology CAREER Grant (CAREER-1253197) to Mary Gardiner, the USDA AFRI Agroecosystem Management Grant (20166701925146), and the USDA Agricultural Research Program Initiative Foundational Programs Grant (2017-67013-26595). iv Vita 2010………………………………………………………………….Brunswick High School 2014-2017…………………………………………………………Undergraduate research assistant in Susan Jones’ lab 2014………………………………………………………..………..Ground beetle ID with Sarah Bowman PhD candidate 2016…………………………………………………………………..A.S. Environment and Natural Resources, The Agricultural Technical Institute of The Ohio State University 2016……………………………………………………………………B.S. Entomology, The Ohio State University 2017-present……………………………………………………..M.S. Entomology, The Ohio State University 2017…………………………………………………………………..Ohio Pest Management Association scholarship 2018…………………………………………………………………..1st Place Delong 10 minute presentation competition 2018……………………………………………………………………2nd place PIE student competition 10 minute presentation competition 2019……………………………………………………………………NCB travel scholarship 2019……………………………………………………………………1st place PIE student competition 10 minute presentation v 2019…………………………………………………………………….ROOT award recipient 10 minute presentation 2020…………………………………………………………….………NCB virtual 1st place PIE student competition 10 minute presentation Fields of study Major Field: Entomology Environmental and Natural Resources vi Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iv Vita…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….v List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………ix List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..x Chapter 1. Mowing frequency does not influence ant communities living in urban vacant lots…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………1 Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 Site Selection……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..5 Ant collection and identification…………………………………………………………………………………………8 Vegetation data………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Landscape data…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……11 Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..19 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..22 Chapter 2. Using ant bioindicators to assess how vacant land conservation compares to existing suburban Metropark preserves……………………………..…………………………………………………………….….24 Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..24 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….25 Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……29 Site Selection……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……29 Ant collection and identification…………………………………………………………………………………….…32 Soil data……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………36 vii Vegetation data………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..38 Landscape data…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………39 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40 Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….54 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….57 References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….59 viii List of Tables Table 1: Ants collected from unbaited pitfall traps in control and urban meadow vacant lots in 2015-2016 in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. …………………………..……………………………………………………………13 Table 2: Ant community weighted means for individual f Ant community weighted means for individual functional traits, functional richness, and functional dispersion of dietary niches across treatments in 2015 and 2016.unctional traits, functional richness, and functional dispersion of dietary niches across treatments in 2015 and 2016. ………….……………..………...….…19 Table 3: List of all plant species seeded in the pocket prairie sites during the establishment phase in 2014 and 2016. The seed mix consisted of 3 native grasses and 16 native forb species which were planted on 3-12 November 2014. The overseed mix consisted of the six forb species which were added on 28-29 January 2016. ……………………………………………………………………………..32 Table 4: Ants collected from unbaited pitfall traps in vacant lots, pocket prairies, and Metropark forests in 2018 and 2019 in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. ………………………………………….………………………44 Table 5: Ants collected from baits in vacant lots, pocket prairies, and Metropark forests in 2018 in and near Cleveland, Ohio, USA. …….………………………………………………………………………………….…45 Table 6: Observed species richness and first-order and second-order jackknife estimates for individual-based rarefaction curves for vacant lot, pocket prairie, and Metropark forest treatments in 2018 and 2019. …………………………………………………………………………………………..…….45 Table 7: Differences in ant species richness, functional dispersion of ant dietary niches, and body length CWMs. Averages (±SEs) are provided. Results are from GLMMs. ……………….…….…49 Table 8: Results of PLSR analyses examining the influence of local soil and vegetation variables, and landscape variables on ant species richness, ant dietary dispersion, and CWM body length. …………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….52