2013 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 12(2):367–378
Ant Species in the Diet of a Florida Population of Eastern
Narrow-Mouthed Toads, Gastrophryne carolinensis
Mark Deyrup1,*, Leif Deyrup2, and James Carrel3
Abstract - Gastrophryne carolinensis (Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad) is known to be
an ant specialist, but prey identification has rarely progressed beyond family level. There
are no prey records from Florida scrub, a rare upland habitat type. This study identifies
species of 4859 individual ants retrieved from stomachs of 146 G. carolinensis collected
in Florida scrub. All toads had consumed ants; ants comprised about 95% of all food
items. Forty-three species of ants were recorded. About 77% were various species of
Pheidole or Nylanderia. The ants consumed were mostly small (4 mm or less in length)
and nocturnally active. Species that were eaten belong to ant genera known to contain
venoms, chemical repellents, or other organic substances in exocrine glands. This finding
suggests the possibility that Narrow-mouthed Toads have opportunities to sequester
exocrine secretions of ants, in the manner of some other anurans. The diversity of ant
species consumed by G. carolinensis suggests that this species might be able to subsist
on disturbed-site ants, including exotic species such as Solenopsis invicta.
Gastrophryne carolinensis (Holbrook) (Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad) is a
common amphibian found throughout Florida, with a range extending north into
Maryland and west into Texas and Kansas (Nelson 1972). It may be the most
numerous amphibian species at some southeastern sites (Dodd et al. 2007, Farrell
et al. 2011, Tuberville et al. 2005). It is a small species, with an adult snout–
vent length (SVL) of 23–27 mm (Nelson 1972). The Narrow-mouthed Toad is
completely nocturnal, spending the day in its burrow or under debris (Anderson
1954, Dickerson 1906). The diet of North American Gastrophryne species has
long been known to consist primarily of ants (Anderson 1954, Brown 1974, Carpenter
1954, Dickerson 1906, Fitch 1956, Garton and Mushinsky 1979, Nelson
1972, Tanner 1950). Fitch (1956) even called G. olivacea (Hallowell) (Western
Narrow-mouthed Toad) “the Ant-eating Frog”, although this common name
did not gain wide currency. Nelson (1972) suggests that Gastrophryne species
show several adaptations for myrmecophagy, including a fold of skin that can be
moved forward to cover and protect the eyes, a small mouth, especially compared
with hylid frogs of the same size, and a tough skin that produces a sticky defensive
Our study aimed to go beyond reaffirming that ants are the primary prey of
G. carolinensis. Identification of ant species in stomach contents should permit
1Archbold Biological Station, 123 Main Drive, Venus FL 33960. 2Department of Biology,
University of the Cumberlands, Williamsburg, KY 40769. 3Division of Biological Sciences,
University of Missouri-Columbia, MO 65211. *Corresponding author - mdeyrup@
368 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 12, No. 2
correlations between Narrow-mouth Toad feeding behavior and size, daily activity
patterns, defenses, and other specific features of prey species. Since the ant
fauna of the study site is well known (Deyrup and Trager 1986, Wiescher 2010),
it should also be possible to list some available species that are not included in the
diet of G. carolinensis. Finally, this study should provide a dietary baseline, as
the study site is a natural habitat with few non-native ants; such sites are becoming
less frequent in peninsular Florida, a region heavily invaded by exotic ants
(Deyrup et al. 2000).
Although the primary purpose of this study is a detailed account of the diet
of G. carolinensis, it also adds unusually detailed information on ants as dietary
items. This latter subject is generally neglected by myrmecologists, who tend to
be enthralled by the accomplishments of ants and not disposed to view ants as
victims. A recent, comprehensive book on the ecology of ants (Lach et al. 2010),
for example, does not examine the ecological importance of ants as the dietary
mainstay of a wide variety of vertebrates and arthropods.
The primary study site was the Archbold Biological Station (ABS) (27°11'N,
81°21'W), a 2001.6-ha private research station 12 km south of the town of Lake
Placid in Highlands County, FL. The habitat where toads were collected is native
Florida scrub, a shrub habitat that occurs on deep, well-drained sandy uplands.
This habitat is kept open by periodic fires; for a general description of Florida
scrub habitat and its ecology, see Myers (1990). Trapping of G. carolinensis was
in two Florida scrub plant associations. One of these was scrub rosemary “balds”,
a habitat dominated by Ceratiola ericoides Michaux (Sandhill Rosemary)
shrubs, with patches of open sand between the shrubs. The other was “scrubby
flatwoods”, dominated by scrub oaks, especially Quercus geminata Small (Sand
Live Oak), Q. chapmanii Sargent (Chapman’s Oak), Q. inopina Ashe (Sandhill
Oak), Serenoa repens (Bartram) Small (Saw Palmetto), Sabal etonia Swingle ex
Nash (Scrub Palmetto), and ericaceous shrubs, such as Lyonia species. These uplands
are interspersed with areas of flatwoods and seasonal ponds that have a high
watertable in the rainy season. For a detailed description of habitats on the ABS,
including plant associations, soil types, nutrients, soil moisture, and prevalent
soil and air temperatures, see Abrahamson et al. (1984).
Gastrophryne carolinensis, 146 specimens, were captured incidentally in a
study of burrowing wolf spiders, whose population dynamics are the subject
of long-term studies by one of the authors (J. Carrel). Toads were collected in
15-cm-diameter, plastic, water-filled dessert bowls that were buried to their rims
in the surrounding sand. The protruding rims appear to exclude most ground lizards,
but G. carolinensis occasionally fell in and drowned. This species is able
to float in water in breeding ponds (Dickerson 1906), and we assume that toads
were affected by the presence of a small amount of dish-washing detergent, used
2013 M. Deyrup, L. Deyrup, and J. Carrel 369
to keep spiders from using surface tension to escape from the bowls. Most collections
were made in March–November of 2007–2008, with the largest numbers of
toads found in August–September. Specimens from an array of traps were combined
over a 5-day interval and stored in 70% isopropyl alcohol. For example, a
long series is labeled “5–9 August 2008, Ceratiola bald”. It is not possible at this
point to assign exact sites and dates to specimens. Each toad was measured (SVL)
and given a number prior to removal of stomach contents. Arthropods were surveyed
from stomachs only, as intestinal contents were often too degraded to allow
identification of prey species.
Our examination of 146 G. carolinensis stomach contents showed that ants are
the principle prey of G. carolinensis on the ABS (Appendix 1). All individuals
had ants in their stomachs, and numbers of ants per stomach ranged from 1–313,
with a mean of 33.3 and a median of 27.5. Although non-ant prey items occurred
in most stomachs, the 4869 individual ants comprised about 95% of all prey
items. Ants clearly made up most of the weight and volume of prey items, since
160 of the 266 additional food items were mites that are less than half the size of
the smallest ant. The remaining non-ant insects were small Coleoptera, Hymenoptera,
Heteroptera and Diptera, the largest of which (the elaterid Conoderus
bellus) is only about 3.5 mm in length. Our study supports earlier findings of
an ant-based diet for Gastrophryne species (Anderson 1954, Fitch 1956, Tanner
1950). The primary contribution of our study to the natural history of G. carolinensis
is the species-level identification of prey, especially the 43 species of ants
There is no reason to suspect that G. carolinensis has nutritional requirements
that can only be met by particular species or genera of ants. Most of the species
that we recorded are absent from the northern range of G. carolinensis, and are
also absent from some habitats, such as cypress swamps (M. Deyrup, unpubl.
data), where G. carolinensis may occur (Anderson 1954). At the generic level,
all the ants we recorded are widespread in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic
states, with the exceptions of Odontomachus and Hypoponera. It is possible that
some of these genera have a special nutritional significance for G. carolinensis,
but there is no evidence of this, and the diversity of ant genera represented in
the stomach contents suggests a lack of selectivity. There are, however, large
differences in the numbers of ants representing various genera in this sample of
stomach contents. About 77% of all ants were in the unrelated genera Pheidole
(consumed by 89% of the Gastrophryne) or Nylanderia (consumed by 76% of the
Gastrophryne). The simplest working hypothesis to explain this is that members
of these two genera were most accessible and vulnerable to pred ation.
Gastrophryne carolinensis is known to be exclusively nocturnal (Anderson
1954, Dickerson 1906). As expected, ants found in the ABS sample of stomach
370 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 12, No. 2
contents (Appendix 1) are generally species that are nocturnal or crepuscular
during the summer at the ABS. Among the prey were two species of ants that
are almost completely diurnal, Forelius pruinosus and Monomorium viride
(M. Deyrup, unpubl. data). These, however, were rare in stomach contents—
the former species consumed by one G. carolinensis, the latter by three. If
G. carolinensis take up residence in or adjacent to ant nests, as reported by
several observers elsewhere (Anderson 1954, Fitch 1956, Tanner 1950, Wood
1948), one would expect some toads would be associated with diurnal ants. At
the ABS, there is no evidence that G. carolinensis moves into ant nests. Not
only are there no records of large numbers of diurnal ants in stomach contents,
but there are very few of the teneral (partially pigmented) adult ants that are
usually found in ant nests. Most stomachs contained relatively small numbers
of several species of ants, as if toads were consuming stray ants and small
groups of ants foraging on the surface or in leaf litter. In the habitats where
toads were sampled, most terrestrial ants nest deep in the soil or have diffuse
nests in sand or leaf litter; the option of living in or adjacent to an ant nest may
not be available. At the ABS, it appears that G. carolinensis can find sufficient
prey without moving into an ant nest.
Gastrophryne carolinensis appears to avoid ants in the genera Odontomachus
(three specimens eaten) and Camponotus (two specimens eaten). These
ants are largely nocturnal (Wiescher 2010). Members of both genera are
common in the habitats where trapping occurred (Wiescher 2010). It is possible
that these ants are too large to be readily acceptable: O. relictus is about
7 mm in length, while the Camponotus species range about 6–9 mm. The
largest ants occurring in large numbers in stomach contents were species of
Aphaenogaster, which are about 4–6 mm in length. Odontomachus workers
have a powerful sting, while Camponotus can spray defensive chemicals. Dorymyrmex
is another genus that might be underrepresented as prey. Nineteen
G. carolinensis consumed a total of 50 Dorymyrmex (Appendix 1), but these
ants are abundant in the study area and sometimes active at night during summer
(Trager 1988, Wiescher 2010).
Ants eaten by G. carolinensis almost certainly produce diverse medleys of
exocrine secretions. Comparative studies over the past 40 years reveal that ants
exude more than 140 organic substances from as many as nine types of exocrine
glands (Morgan 2008). Venom glands of ants, the type of glands that has received
the most intensive analysis, are remarkably versatile “factories” for natural
products (Fig. 1; Blum 1992, Schmidt 1986). Ants with functional stings include
species of Hypoponera, Odontomachus, Neivamyrmex, Monomorium, Pyramica,
Solenopsis, and Strumigenys. Ants whose venoms have been characterized include
species of Brachymyrmex, Nylanderia (Saporito et al. 2004, Smith and
Jones 2004), Camponotus (Eisner et al. 1993), Dorymyrmex (Blum and Warter
1966, McGurk et al. 1968), Forelius (McGurk et al. 1968), Aphaenogaster
(Wheeler et al. 1981), Odontomachus (Wheeler and Blum 1973), Solenopsis
(MacConnell et al. 1970), Solenopsis (Diplorhoptrum) (Blum 1981), Trachymyrmex
(Crewe and Blum 1972), and Cyphomyrmex (Crewe and Blum 1972).
2013 M. Deyrup, L. Deyrup, and J. Carrel 371
The prosperity of G. carolinensis through its native range will depend largely
on adequate larval habitat (Dixon et al. 2011) and on the ability to persist in
disturbed habitats dominated by exotic ants. Exotic ants in our sample are represented
by six species, of which only two, Pheidole moerens and Solenopsis
invicta, were consumed by more than three individual toads. This probably
reflects the relative scarcity of exotic ants in undisturbed Florida scrub habitat
(King and Porter 2007, Wiescher 2010). At the level of myrmecological surveys
or the level of populations of foraging G. carolinensis, natural habitats in the
southeastern coastal plain often persist only in a matrix of disturbed habitats such
as improved pastures, fields, urban and suburban areas, and road edges (King
and Porter 2007). Exotic ants in the Southeast are largely confined to disturbed
Figure 1. Ants, arranged by subspecies and characteristic venoms, in the diet of Eastern
Narrow-mouthed Toads in Florida scrub habitat. Diagram of families adapted from Tsutsui
et al. (2008).
372 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 12, No. 2
areas, where they may be a major part of the ant fauna (Deyrup et al. 2000, King
and Porter 2007, King and Tschinkel 2006, Tschinkel 2006). In heavily disturbed
sites, such as improved pastures, non-native ants comprise up to 90% of the total
number of ants (King and Tschinkel 2006). The speciose ant diet that we documented
at the ABS suggests that G. carolinensis is a generalist consumer of small
ants and could subsist on a diet of small exotic ants. Almost all small exotic ants
in Florida belong to genera represented in our sample of stomac h contents.
The abundant Solenopsis invicta Buren (Red Imported Fire Ant) may present
a special challenge or opportunity for G. carolinensis. Under certain conditions
S. invicta can mass attack and kill small amphibians that have poor mobility
(Todd et al. 2008, Tschinkel 2006). This ant has been frequently invoked to
explain the decline of some vertebrates, including amphibians, but credible evidence
of population-level effects is scarce (Tschinkel 2006). Most suggestions of
such population declines are based on anecdotes, loose correlations, or situations
where a variety of environmental influences are at play, only one of which is
high populations of S. invicta (Tschinkel 2006). It is not unreasonable to suggest
that the invasion of S. invicta may have benefitted G. carolinensis. The major
benefit would be the introduction of an enormous dietary resource, consisting
of ants of suitable size, usually found in shallow nests that erupt with potential
victims when disturbed. This idea is supported by the presence of S. invicta in our
samples and by reports of G. carolinensis in nest mounds of S. invicta (Garton
and Mushinsky 1979). On the other hand, it is possible that an almost exclusive
diet of S. invicta is unsuitable for G. carolinensis, or there might be a period of
vulnerability to S. invicta in the life cycle of G. carolinensis, such as just after
metamorphosis. There are many sites in Florida appropriate for examining the
relationship between S. invicta and G. carolinensis. It might be difficult to adequately
demonstrate population-level relationships between the two species,
but it should be relatively easy to show whether G. carolinensis experiences
S. invicta as a resource, or as a hazard, or perhaps both.
The 266 prey arthropods other than ants comprise 5.2% of the individual arthropods
consumed. The majority of non-ant arthropods are hard-bodied mites
such as Oribatidae. These prey are under 1 mm in length and generally heavily
armored. Oribatid mites appear to be a dietary source of protective alkaloids for
dendrobatid “poison frogs” (Saporito et al. 2007). Some dendrobatid frogs have
been described as “ant-mite specialists” (Saporito et al. 2007). Other non-ant
arthropod prey items include a wide spectrum of small ground-dwelling species,
none of which was eaten by more than a few toads. The diversity of non-ant prey
appears to show a great flexibility in consumption of opportunistic prey. Gastrophryne
carolinensis is an ant specialist and probably has specific ant-hunting
behavior, but its wide range of alternative prey suggests that G. carolinensis
might take advantage of aggregations of food items other than a nts.
It is intriguing to speculate on the possibility that G. carolinensis might sequester
natural products from ingested ants and mites, and use them to augment
its integumentary defenses, much as some dendrobatid and ranid frogs do (Eisner
et al. 1990, Saporito et al. 2012 and references therein). Developmental studies
2013 M. Deyrup, L. Deyrup, and J. Carrel 373
by Garton and Mushinsky (1979) show that the skin of G. carolinensis becomes
intrinsically toxic and unpalatable to predaceous vertebrates as tadpoles metamorphose.
However, to our knowledge, chemical analyses of organic products in
skin secretions from this toad have not been performed. It is conceivable that as
free-ranging toads feed they systemically retain substances of dietary origin and
broaden their integumentary defenses, rendering them more effective against the
diverse array of predators and parasites encountered in nature. If such chemical
studies were to support the dietary-defense hypothesis, controlled feeding tests
using taxonomically identified ants and mites could be warranted .
This research was supported by the Archbold Biological Station. We thank Nancy
Deyrup for helping prepare Table 1.
Abrahamson, W.G., A.F. Johnson, J.N. Layne, and P.A. Peroni. 1984. Vegetation of the
Archbold Biological Station, Florida: An example of the southern Lake Wales Ridge.
Florida Scientist 47:211–250.
Anderson, P.K. 1954. Studies on the ecology of the Narrow-mouthed Toad, Microhyla
carolinensis carolinensis. Tulane Studies in Zoology 2:15–46.
Blum, M.S. 1981. Chemical Defenses of Arthropods. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Blum, M.S. 1992. Ant venoms: Chemical and pharmacological properties. Toxin Review
Blum, M.S., and S.L. Warter. 1966. Chemical releases of social behavior. VII. The isolation
of 2-heptane from Conomyrma pyramica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Dolichoderinae)
and its modus operandi as a releaser of alarm and digging behavior. Annals
of the Entomological Society of America 59:774–779.
Brown, R.L. 1974. Diet and habitat preferences of selected anurans in southeast Arkansas.
American Midland Naturalist 91:468–473.
Carpenter, C.C. 1954. Feeding aggregations of Narrow-mouthed Toads (Microhyla carolinensis
olivacea). Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 35:45.
Crewe, R.M., and M.S. Blum. 1972. Alarm pheromones of the Attini: Their phylogenetic
significance. Journal of Insect Physiology 18:31–42.
Deyrup, M., and J. Trager. 1986. Ants of the Archbold Biological Station, Highlands
County, Florida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Florida Entomologist 69:20 6–228.
Deyrup, M., L. Davis, and S. Cover. 2000. Exotic ants in Florida. Transactions of the
American Entomological Society 126:293–396.
Dickerson, M.C. 1906. The Frog Book. 1969 Dover Press facsimile republication of 1906
edition, Doubleday, Page, and Co., New York, NY. 253 pp.
Dixon, A.D., W.R. Cox, E.M. Everham III, and D.W. Ceilley. 2011. Anurans as biological
indicators of restoration success in the Greater Everglades ecosystem. Southeastern
Dodd, C.K., Jr., W.J. Barichivich, S.A. Johnson, and J.S. Staiger. 2007. Changes in a
northwestern Florida Gulf Coast herpetofaunal community over a 28-y period. American
Midland Naturalist 158:29–48.
374 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 12, No. 2
Eisner, T., J. Conner, J.E. Carrel, J.P. McCormick, A.J. Slagle, C. Gans, and J.C. O’Reilly.
1990. Systemic retention of ingested cantharidin by frogs. Chem oecology 1:57–92.
Eisner, T., I.T. Baldwin, and J. Conner. 1993. Circumvention of prey defense by a
predator: Ant lion vs. ant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
Farrell, T.M., M.A. Pilgrim, P.G. May, and W.B. Blihovde. 2011. The herpetofauna of
Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Southeastern Naturalist 10:647–
Fitch, H.S. 1956. A field study of the Kansas ant-eating frog, Gastrophryne olivacea.
University of Kansas Publications Museum of Natural History 8:2 75–306.
Garton, J.D., and H.R. Mushinsky. 1979. Integumentary toxicity and unpalatability as
an antipredator mechanism in the Narrow-Mouthed Toad, Gastrophryne carolinensis.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:1965–1973.
King, J.R., and S.D. Porter. 2007. Body size, colony size, abundance, and ecological
impact of exotic ants in Florida’s upland ecosystems. Evolutionary Ecology Research
King, J.R., and W.R. Tschinkel. 2006. Experimental evidence that the introduced fire ant,
Solenopsis invicta, does not competitively suppress co-occurring ants in a disturbed
habitat. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:1370–1378.
Lach, L., C.L. Parr, and K.L. Abbott (Eds.). 2010. Ant Ecology. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK. 402 pp.
MacConnell, J.G., M.S. Blum, and H.M. Fales. 1970. Alkaloid from fire ant venom:
Identification and synthesis. Science 168:840–841.
McGurk, D.J., J. Frost, G.R. Waller, E.J. Eisnebraun, K. Vick, W.A. Drew, and J. Young.
1968. Iridodial isomer variation in dolichoderine ants. Journal of Insect Physiology
Morgan, E.D. 2008. Chemical sorcery for sociality: Exocrine secretions of ants (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae). Myrmecological News 11:79–80.
Myers, R.L. 1990. Scrub and high pine. Pp. 150–193, In R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel (Eds.).
Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orl ando, FL. 765 pp.
Nelson, C.E. 1972. Systematic studies of the North American microhylid genus Gastrophryne.
Journal of Herpetology 6:111–137.
Saporito, R.A., H.M. Garraffo, M.A. Donnelly, A.L. Edwards, J.T. Longino, and J.W.
Daly. 2004. Formicine ants: An arthropod source for the pumilotoxin alkaloids of
dendrobatid poison frogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
Saporito, R.A., M.A. Donnelly, R.A. Norton, H.M. Garraffo, T.F. Spande, and J.W. Daly.
2007. Oribatid mites as a major dietary source for alkaloids in poison frogs. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences USA:8885–8890.
Saporito, R.A., M.A. Donnelly, T.F. Spande, and H.M. Garraffo. 2012. A review of
chemical ecology in poison frogs. Chemoecology 22:159–168.
Schmidt, J.O. 1986. Chemistry, pharmacology, and chemical ecology of ant venoms.
Pp. 425–508, In T. Piek (Ed.). Venoms of the Hymenoptera. Academic Press, London,
Smith, S.Q., and T.H. Jones. 2004. Tracking the cryptic pumilotoxins. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA 101:7841–7842.
Tanner, W.W. 1950. Notes on the habits of Microhyla carolinensis olivacea (Hallowell).
2013 M. Deyrup, L. Deyrup, and J. Carrel 375
Todd, B.D., B.B. Rothermel, R.N. Reed, T.M. Luhring, K. Schlatter, L. Trenkamp, and
J.W. Gibbons. 2008. Habitat alteration increases invasive fire ant abundance to the
detriment of amphibians and reptiles. Biological Invasions 10:5 39–546.
Trager, J.C. 1988. A revision of Conomyrma (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from the southeastern
United States, especially Florida, with keys to the species. Florida Entomologist
Tschinkel, W.R. 2006. The Fire Ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 723 pp.
Tsutusui, N.D., A.V. Suarez, J.C. Spagna, and J.S. Johnston. 2008. The evolution of genome
size in ants. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008 8:64. Available online at http://
www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/64. Accessed 25 June 2012.
Tuberville, T.D., J.D. Willson, M.E. Dorcas, and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. Herpetofaunal
diversity of southeastern National Parks. Southeastern Naturali st 4:537–568.
Wheeler, J.W., and M.S. Blum. 1973. Alkylpyrazine alarm pheromones in ponerine ants.
Wheeler, J.W., O. Olubajo, C.B. Storm, and R.M. Duffield. 1981. Anabaseine: Venom
alkaloid of Aphaenogaster ants. Science 211:1051–1052.
Wiescher, P.T. 2010. Ant coexistence in a spatially heterogeneous region in central
Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, UT. 156 pp.
Wood, J.T. 1948. Microhyla c. carolinensis in an ant nest. Herpetologica 4:226.
376 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 12, No. 2
Appendix 1. Species, numbers, and percentages of ants and other arthropods eaten by Eastern
Narrow-mouthed Toads in Florida scrub habitat. Asterisk (*) denotes non-native species.
Ants Stomachs % total % non-ant
Ants # % # % prey prey
Ponerinae 17 0.35
Hypoponera 12 0.25 4 2.74
H. opaciceps (Mayr) 8 0.16 3 2.05
H. punctatissima (Roger)* 4 0.08 1 0.68
Odontomachus relictus Deyrup & Cover 5 0.10 5 3.42
Ecitoninae 197 4.05
Neivamyrmex 197 4.05 15 10.27
N. carolinensis (Emery) 84 1.73 3 2.05
N. opacithorax (Emery) 113 2.32 12 8.22
Myrmicinae 3410 70.03
Aphaenogaster 27 0.55 16 10.96
A. flemingi M.R. Smith 4 0.08 4 2.74
A. floridana M.R. Smith 1 0.02 1 0.68
A. miamiana Wheeler 2 0.04 2 1.37
A. treatae Forel 20 0.41 9 6.16
Cardiocondyla emeryi Forel* 1 0.02 1 0.68
Crematogaster ashmeadi Mayr 2 0.04 1 0.68
Cyphomyrmex 21 0.43 13 8.9
C. minutus Mayr 17 0.34 10 6.85
C. rimosus (Spinola)* 4 0.08 3 2.05
Monomorium viride Brown 39 0.80 3 2.05
Pheidole 2749 56.45 130 89.04
P. adrianoi Naves 10 0.21 4 2.74
P. dentata Mayr 12 0.25 3 2.05
P. floridana 522 10.72 56 38.36
P. metallescens Emery 399 8.19 39 26.71
P. moerens Wheeler* 371 7.62 14 9.59
P. morrisi Forel 1433 29.43 96 65.75
Pheidole, unidentified 2 0.04 2 1.37
Pyramica deyrupi Bolton 4 0.08 3 2.05
Solenopsis 475 9.76 75 51.37
S. abdita Thompson or carolinensis Forel 51 1.05 13 8.9
S. globularia littoralis Creighton 52 1.07 14 9.59
S. invicta Buren* 67 1.38 16 10.96
S. nickersoni Thompson 174 3.57 31 21.23
S. pergandei Forel 128 2.63 25 17.2
S. tennesseensis M.R. Smith 3 0.06 2 1.37
Strumigenys 21 0.43 4 2.75
S. emmae (Emery)* 3 0.06 2 1.37
S. louisianae Roger 1 0.02 1 0.68
S. rogeri Emery 17 0.35 1 0.68
Trachymyrmex septentrionalis (McCook) 71 1.46 27 18.49
Formicinae 1159 23.80
Brachymyrmex depilis Emery 149 3.06 21 14.38
Camponotus 2 0.04 2 1.37
C. floridanus (Buckley) 1 0.02 1 0.68
C. inaequalis Roger 1 0.02 1 0.68
2013 M. Deyrup, L. Deyrup, and J. Carrel 377
Ants Stomachs % total % non-ant
Ants # % # % prey prey
Nylanderia 1008 20.70 111 76.03
N. arenivaga Wheeler 433 8.89 81 55.48
N. concinna (Trager) 4 0.08 2 1.37
N. phantasma (Trager) 247 5.07 50 34.25
N. wojciki (Trager) 319 6.55 51 34.93
N. sp. 4 0.08 1 0.68
Dolichoderinae 76 1.56
Dorymyrmex 50 1.03 19 13.01
D. bossutus (Trager) 1 0.02 1 0.68
D. bureni (Trager) 30 0.62 7 4.79
D. elegans (Trager) 19 0.39 12 8.22
Forelius pruinosus (Roger) 26 0.53 1 0.68
Unidentified Formicidae 10 0.21 1 0.68
Formicidae, total 4869 100.00 146 100 95.35
Arthropods other than ants 266 101 69.18 5.18
Acarina 160 66 45.21 60.15
Arachnida 11 11 7.53 4.14
Coleoptera 32 23 15.7 12.03
Acalles minimus Blatchley 3 3 2.05 1.13
Aphodius campestris Blatchley 1 1 0.68 0.38
Ataenius sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Ahasverus rectus (LeConte) 5 3 2.05 1.88
Cis sp. 5 5 3.42 1.88
Conoderus bellus (Say) 3 3 2.05 1.13
Metophthalmus americanus Motschulsky 1 1 0.68 0.38
Poecilocrypticus formicophilus Gebien * 1 1 0.68 0.38
Ischnosoma flavicolle (LeConte) 2 2 1.37 0.75
Proteininae sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Scydmaenidae sp. 4 4 2.74 1.5
Stelidota geminata (Say) 5 1 0.68 1.88
Collembola 31 16 10.96 11.65
Entomobryidae sp. 3 3 2.05 1.13
Poduridae sp. 19 6 4.11 7.14
Sminthuridae sp. 9 8 5.48 3.38
Diptera 4 4 2.74 1.5
Ceratopogonidae sp. 4 4 2.74 1.5
378 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 12, No. 2
Ants Stomachs % total % non-ant
Ants # % # % prey prey
Embioptera sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Heteroptera 3 3 2.05 1.13
Ceratocombus vagans McAtee & Malloch 1 1 0.68 0.38
Lygaeidae sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Melanaethus subpunctatus (Blatchley) 1 1 0.68 0.38
Hymenoptera (Non-ant) 5 5 3.42 1.88
Braconidae sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Encyrtidae sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Diapriidae sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Scelionidae sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Olixon banksii (Brues) 1 1 0.68 0.38
Orthoptera 2 2 1.37 0.75
Cycloptilum sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38
Neotridactylus archboldi Deyrup & Eisner 1 1 0.68 0.38
Isoptera, Rhinotermitidae 16 5 3.42 6.02
Symphyla sp. 1 1 0.68 0.38