@inbook {32874,
	title = {Invasive ant management},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {287-304},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	organization = {Oxford University Press},
	address = {Oxford},
	keywords = {management},
	issn = {978{\textendash}0{\textendash}19{\textendash}954463{\textendash}9},
	url = {http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23048707/884109595/name/ANT+ECOLOGY\%5B1\%5D.pdf$\#$page=306},
	author = {Hoffmann, Benjamin D and Abbott, Kirsti L and Davis, Peter},
	editor = {Lach, L. and Parr, C. and Abbott, K.}
}
@article {27873,
	title = {The causes and consequences of ant invasions},
	journal = {Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics},
	volume = {33},
	year = {2002},
	note = {Part of FORMIS 04; from NAL{\textquoteright}S AGRICOLA; from-DPW, },
	month = {Volume publicati},
	pages = {181-233},
	abstract = {*[Invasions by non-native ants are an ecologically destructive phenomenon affecting both continental \& island ecosystems throughout the world.  Invasive ants often become highly abundant intheir invaded range and can outnumber native ants.  These numerical disparities underlie the competitive asymmetry between invasive ants and native ants, and result from a complex interplay of behavioral, ecological, \& genetic factors.  Reductions in the diversity \& abundance of native ants resulting from ant invasions give rise to a variety of direct and indirect effects on non-ant taxa.  Invasive ants compete with and prey upon a diversity of other organisms, including some vertebrates, and may enter into or disrupt mutualistic interactions with numerous plants and other insects.  Paratrechina longicornis is labeled as an African species.]},
	author = {Holway, D.A. and Lach, L. and Suarez, A.V. and Ysutsui, N.D. and Case, T.J.}
}
@article {27874,
	title = {Invasive ants: unwanted partners in ant-plant interactions?},
	journal = {Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden},
	volume = {90},
	year = {2003},
	note = {Part of FORMIS 07; from Fire Ant Literature Database; from-DPW, },
	pages = {91-108},
	abstract = {*[As invasive ants spread, their interactions with plants are inevitable \& have potentially great implications for agriculture \& conservation.  When considered in the context of pre-existing models of ant-plant interactions (the higher abundance, aggressive nature, \& attraction to high-carbohydrate resources typically associated with invasive ants) lead to hypotheses about how invasive ants may differ from native ants in protecting plants from herbivores, tending of Homoptera, \& interactions affecting plant reproduction.  Examples demonstrate that all 3 of these traits common to invasive ants can influence the outcome of interactions between invasive ants \& plants, but ant biology \& attributes of other organisms also determine the consequences for the plant.  Drawing from these examples \& considering traits of the invasive ants, plants, \& other organisms that interact with the plant, I offer predictions for the contexts in which plants will be at high \& low risk of adverse outcomes or may benefit from interacting with an invasive ant.  The potential for effects of invasive ants on plants to counteract, \& the complexity \& context-dependency, that are hallmarks of ant-plant interactions, generally, preclude drawing simple conclusions about the net impacts of invasive ants on plants.  Further research on interactions between invasive ants \& plants will contribute directly to conservation \& agriculture,  providing insights to invasion ecology \& our understanding of ant-plant interactions.]},
	author = {Lach, L.}
}
@article {27875,
	title = {Invasive ants in Australia: documented and potential ecological consequences},
	journal = {Australian Journal of Entomology},
	volume = {47},
	year = {2008},
	note = {Part of FORMIS 09; from NAL{\textquoteright}S AGRICOLA; from-DPW, },
	month = {November 2008},
	pages = {275-288},
	abstract = {A growing number of species are being transported and introduced by humans to new locations and are establishing self-sustaining populations outside their native ranges. Since ants play many ecological roles, introduction of an invasive ant species, and subsequent disruption of Australia{\textquoteright}s rich and abundant native ant fauna, has the potential for numerous adverse consequences. Over 6700 ants representing 105 species from 73 genera have been intercepted at Australian ports of entry in the last 20 years and all six of the world{\textquoteright}s most destructive invasive ants have become established in the country. Here we review the current and potential consequences of these ants on Australia{\textquoteright}s natural and agricultural environments. To date, several studies, most involving the big-headed ant, Pheidole megacephala, and the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, have documented a decline in native ant species richness. The displacement of native ants by these invaders could have multiple consequences for the native flora and fauna. Since few of these have been investigated in Australia, we combine knowledge from invasions elsewhere, the ecology of the interactions, and data on current and predicted geographic ranges of introduced ants to hypothesize about likely indirect effects of invasive ants in Australia. Further investigations that are aimed at testing these predictions will also aid in justifying and prioritizing national prevention and control efforts, and will contribute to some of the long-standing questions about ant invasions globally.},
	author = {Lach, L. and Thomas, M.L.}
}
@article {3751,
	title = {Interference and exploitation competition of three nectar-thieving invasive ant species},
	journal = {Insectes Sociaux},
	volume = {52},
	year = {2005},
	note = {Part of FORMIS 07; from-DPW, },
	pages = {257-262},
	abstract = {*[I compared the nectar-thieving behavior of 3 widespread invasive ant species: long-legged ants (Anoplolepis gracilipes), Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), \& big-headed ants (Pheidole megacephala) in inflorescences of the native Hawaiian {\textquoteleft}ohi{\textquoteright}a tree, an important food source for native fauna.  A. gracilipes was least likely to leave inflorescences unvisited \& visited inflorescences in higher numbers than both L. humile \& P. megacephala.  A. gracilipes \& L. humile visited more flowers in an inflorescence \& were less likely to retreat from a flower with a competitor than P. megacephala.  A. gracilipes was able to take 5.5 \& 11.3 times the amount of nectar than L. humile \& P. megacephala, respectively.  Thus, A. gracilipes may be effective at both interference and exploitation competition against other nectarivores, L. humile may be effective at interference competition, \& P. megacephala may be relatively weak at both types of competition against other nectarivores.]},
	author = {Lach, L.}
}
